ATTN: Dalai Lama
Rob
American films of the 20th century list. Granted there are some things I
disagree with on the list. Almost everything though is either one of the
all time great films or one of the all time most influential films, and in
most cases both. Personally I don't think the sound of music should be on
there, I don't think Citizen Kane should be number one, I don't think
Wizard of Oz should be number six, and because of one scene I don't think
"Guess who's coming to Dinner" should've made the list.
However I do understand why everything's on the list. And I don't have
any real objections to anything. Even though I disagree with either the
placement or making of the above four films, I still understand why they
are where they are. Except for Kane, which I think is just to make up for
sins of the past.
Anyways I was going through the list checking off what I'd already
seen when I got to number eighty. Now I think it was with you that I was
arguing a few months ago about how great of a film "The Wild Bunch" was,
as I said not only was it a great action flick, but it also had other
elements to it that made it worth four stars. Anyways it made number
eighty on the list, so apparently I'm not alone in thinking this. Are you
sure you aren't thinking of a different movie? Everyone I talk to thinks
this is a different movie.
Dalai Lama
> I just got a copy of the AFI (American Film Institute) Top 100
>American films of the 20th century list. Granted there are some things I
>disagree with on the list. Almost everything though is either one of the
>all time great films or one of the all time most influential films, and in
>most cases both. Personally I don't think the sound of music should be on
>there,
I think Sound of Music is a great film, and lots of fun, but I don't
think it belongs on the list.
> I don't think Citizen Kane should be number one,
This may be one of those reputation type ratings boost.
> I don't think Wizard of Oz should be number six,
Far too high,
> and because of one scene I don't think
>"Guess who's coming to Dinner" should've made the list.
> However I do understand why everything's on the list. And I don't have
>any real objections to anything. Even though I disagree with either the
>placement or making of the above four films, I still understand why they
>are where they are. Except for Kane, which I think is just to make up for
>sins of the past.
> Anyways I was going through the list checking off what I'd already
>seen when I got to number eighty. Now I think it was with you that I was
>arguing a few months ago about how great of a film "The Wild Bunch" was
Shoot, and here I was expecting to see T2 on there at 80 :-)
>>as I said not only was it a great action flick, but it also had other
>elements to it that made it worth four stars. Anyways it made number
>eighty on the list, so apparently I'm not alone in thinking this. Are you
>sure you aren't thinking of a different movie?
Could very well be. If the movie companies would quit whining
about technology laws and focuse on getting rental on demand (just
make the DIVX on the spot at the Blockbuster/Hollywood rental store),
there would be a lot more films I'd rent and buy. As it is now,
unless it's a private rental place that's been around since the 80's
they usually don't have jack for decent video rentals.
--
Rob
news:3c9d3dae...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:04:23 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>
> > I just got a copy of the AFI (American Film Institute) Top 100
> >American films of the 20th century list. Granted there are some things
I
> >disagree with on the list. Almost everything though is either one of
the
> >all time great films or one of the all time most influential films, and
in
> >most cases both. Personally I don't think the sound of music should be
on
> >there,
>
> I think Sound of Music is a great film, and lots of fun, but I don't
> think it belongs on the list.
>
> > I don't think Citizen Kane should be number one,
>
> This may be one of those reputation type ratings boost.
AFI is responsible for a lot of Kane's reputation. I know it made the
list because as far as cinematography and story goes, it's probably one of
the most influencial films out there.
> > I don't think Wizard of Oz should be number six,
>
> Far too high,
Other than King Kong, which also made the list, it was the very first
fantasy film. And that black and white to color trick was really
something. Still I think it would've fit better in the mid forties, or at
the very least below kong.
> Shoot, and here I was expecting to see T2 on there at 80 :-)
As far as I can tell, there's only one sequal and one remake on the
list. The Godfather 2 and The Maltese Falchon. I've gone through the list
and found a few more gripes. Honestly though, it is pretty open and fair,
in fact it's surprisingly fair as a lot of films I thought would've
deserved the list but wouldn't make it did.
With Spielburg they chose five films, Raiders, ET, Close Encounters,
Schindler's list, and Jaws. I'm in agreement with Jaws and Raiders.
Especially Raiders since it is one of the most influencial films out there
as far as character goes. I'm in disagreement with ET and Close Encounters
both making the list, since I feel he did pretty much the same thing with
them. And I'm in disagreement over Schindler. It's a great film about a
great man, I just don't think it should've made the list. You'll be happy
to know though that Speilburg has changed ET, taking out a comment about
terrorists and making guns into walkie talkies with computers, and now he
has his eyes set on Raiders.
I'm a little upset Platoon made the list and Full Metal Jacket didn't,
although Kubrick made it three times, so I doubt he's turning over in his
grave. I'm guessing they were looking more at the film in terms of
character and theme than a realistic portrayal of Vietnam. No I didn't
fight in it, but this is from talking to people who did about Vietnam's
portrayal in films. Two other Vietnam films on there, Apocolypse Now, and
the Deer Hunter, both of which I agree with.
I was kind of upset that out of the six westerns on the list, Eastwood
only had one, Unforgiven, since I feel a lot of his westerns prior to that
had a different kind of influence on the industry. But I think he got
screwed because of the fact that his best work was done in Italy instead
of America, otherwise For a Few Dollars More would've made the list. As it
stands I have no idea what Stage Coach or The Searchers is about, so I
can't comment. High Noon and the Wild Bunch deserve the list though. I
didn't think Shane was that good of a movie, but I understand it's there
because it was pretty much the father of the whole western genre of film.
Out of the two animated movies, Snow White and Fantasia, I agree with
the first but not the second. I'm glad they decided to put a couple of
animated movies on the list at all, but I really wish they would've gone
with something non-disney for the second one, since I don't think Fantasia
was all that great and I think most people don't know about the handful of
great animated works that have come out of the states. At the very least,
I wish they would've gone with Mermaid instead, since Mermaid had a much
huger impact on animation in terms of style than Fantasia did.
I'm sort of in disagreement with Mr. Smith. I liked it, but there are
other Kapra works that didn't make the list that I think were more
deserving. I'm also a little torn on American Graffiti. I loved the movie,
and I think it should be on there. But at the same time I think Guess
Who's Coming To Dinner shouldn't be because of one scene, and Graffiti has
a scene like that. I think Graffiti holds up better as a movie than Dinner
did, so it's more forgivable. And it's not all that high anyways.
There are a few films I think should've made the list but didn't. The
Truman Show is a big one. Same with Stalag 13 and The Road to Morraco.
Those two had a huge influence on their respective genres. In place of
Morraco, I would've even of settled for Singapore, the first in the
series. And The Muppet Movie. That one really deserves a place on there.
And Raising Arizona too. And I already said Full Metal Jacket and Little
Mermaid.
But I do really like the list and think it's fair, personal opinions
withstanding. A few films I didn't think would get recognized did. The two
animated films. Fargo. Hitchcock made the list four times with Vertigo,
Rear Window, North by Northwest, and Psycho. The last of which rated
highest at eighteen. Star Wars, King Kong, The French Connection, and
Goodfellas were all movies I thought would be overlooked but fortunatly
made the list. Oh, and I just thought, Alien should definetly be on the
list. But not Aliens, no no no no no. The one thing they do have is a lack
of Science Fiction movies. The only two that made the list were both
Kubrick films.
> >>as I said not only was it a great action flick, but it also had other
> >elements to it that made it worth four stars. Anyways it made number
> >eighty on the list, so apparently I'm not alone in thinking this. Are
you
> >sure you aren't thinking of a different movie?
>
> Could very well be. If the movie companies would quit whining
> about technology laws and focuse on getting rental on demand (just
> make the DIVX on the spot at the Blockbuster/Hollywood rental store),
> there would be a lot more films I'd rent and buy. As it is now,
> unless it's a private rental place that's been around since the 80's
> they usually don't have jack for decent video rentals.
You mean in terms of being sold out? I haven't noticed much of a
problem at Hollywood with their DVDs. And new movies always come out
Tuesday, so if you want the new stuff it's best to come in on Tuesday.
If you mean inventory, sort of. With DVD they're buying up a lot of
rereleases at Hollywood I've noticed, especially since they feel it's okay
to charge new release rates for DVD rereleases. There's a pretty good
selection now. I noticed with VHS though I had a hard time finding a lot
of the classics I was looking for, and so I ended up having to buy most of
them to see them. Best Buy and Suncoast both have a very large selection.
With the older stuff, I usually don't mind buying. A lot of classic movies
I've seen sold for 2 or 3 dollars a piece, especially the black and
whites. Even on DVD there's only like an additional buck or two mark up a
lot of the times. Unless it's some special rerelease.
Honestly though, I usually end up buying the versions which are a bit
more expensive, not for quality, but because I realize that the money goes
towards non-profit film preservation groups a lot of times, and not into
the hands of a second rate studio trying to make a few bucks of public
domain property. In fact I would recomend buying instead of renting
classics which are brought out by the different preservation groups to
help fund them, since that money will go to putting another film into
digital format fully restored before the masters deteriorate beyond any
hope of restoration.
Rich G.
news:u9ogh05...@corp.supernews.com...
> I just got a copy of the AFI (American Film Institute) Top 100
> American films of the 20th century list. Granted there are some things I
> disagree with on the list. Almost everything though is either one of the
> all time great films or one of the all time most influential films, and in
> most cases both. Personally I don't think the sound of music should be on
> there, I don't think Citizen Kane should be number one, I don't think
> Wizard of Oz should be number six, and because of one scene I don't think
WHAT?!? Sound of Music is a great movie. It should be in the top 10 for
sure! I loved that movie. /me breaks into song "What're we going to do about
Mariaaaaah?"
And re: Wizard of Oz... I think that's about right. Loved that one too.
My problem is, I could probly come up with about 15 movies to go in the top
10 hehehe... and we probly wouldn't agree on 3 of them. : ) Of course,
that's cuz you're wrong. Since my being right is a given round these parts.
Muauahahahhahahah *cough* hahahah *cough*cough*cough*haha *cough* crap. nm.
/me wanders off coughing.
--
Rich G. http://www.geocities.com/simplerichg/index.html
"You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people
can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad)
Spectre
lady...@jedimasterlittlegreenguy.com (LadyJack V.) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:12:14 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> graced us
>with the following words of wisdom:
>
>> You'll be happy
>>to know though that Speilburg has changed ET, taking out a comment about
>>terrorists and making guns into walkie talkies with computers, and now he
>>has his eyes set on Raiders.
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
>
>What? Cite? Please? NOOOOOOOOOO!
>
>Please tell me this isn't a firm thing.
Yup, heard tell of it a while back.
Would you accept a rant from a columnist in the Decatur Daily(north
Alabama newspaper) as a source?
http://home.hiwaay.net/~tfharris/pulpculture/columns/011101.shtml
--
Josh
~All you've ever known...
all your tiny secrets...
all those little hands that did your dirty work...
will soon come around and strangle you.
-Colour, by Fingertight, a recently signed local band.~
~Cot0Sig#18~CotSRSig#39~CotBSig#80~CotCSig#200~CotSSS#7~
~ICQ # 36one2one84~AIM: Spectre45~
Spam blocking in place
Spectre
lady...@jedimasterlittlegreenguy.com (LadyJack V.) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 11:53:07 -0800, Spectre
><spectre45B...@yahoo.com> graced us with the following words of
>wisdom:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:12:46 GMT,
>>lady...@jedimasterlittlegreenguy.com (LadyJack V.) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:12:14 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> graced us
>>>with the following words of wisdom:
>>>
>>>> You'll be happy
>>>>to know though that Speilburg has changed ET, taking out a comment about
>>>>terrorists and making guns into walkie talkies with computers, and now he
>>>>has his eyes set on Raiders.
>>>
>>>AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
>>>
>>>What? Cite? Please? NOOOOOOOOOO!
>>>
>>>Please tell me this isn't a firm thing.
>>
>>Yup, heard tell of it a while back.
>>
>>Would you accept a rant from a columnist in the Decatur Daily(north
>>Alabama newspaper) as a source?
>>http://home.hiwaay.net/~tfharris/pulpculture/columns/011101.shtml
>
>Uh-huh. From that rant:
>
>"What's next?
>
>"It's the principle of the thing. And where will it end?
>
>"Lucas has already said he doesn't like the scene in "Raiders of the
>Lost Ark" where Indiana Jones shoots the swordsman. Maybe he and
>Spielberg can get together and change that? And while they're at it,
>they probably think that there are far too many hearts being ripped
>out of people's chests in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." They
>can "fix" that, too."
>
>That's not a citation that they're *planning* to change it. That's a
>citation that George Lucas has said he doesn't like something and the
>guy ranting, "Well, if you're fixing other great/classic/OK movies
>unnecessarily and actually breaking them, why not go back and screw up
>EVERYTHING you've done because it's not exactly as you wished you'd
>done it a generation ago?" So, while I'd (maybe) accept a rant that
>actually said "And now on top of everything they're 'fixing' *Raiders
>of the Lost Ark*!", I'm not accepting one that only suggests
>sarcastically that Spielberg and Lucas go back and fix more stuff that
>ain't broke. Anyone else?
>
>Worried,
>Jack
I'm pretty sure the E.T. edit is a sure thing. He quoted the producer
saying they're gonna change it. I'm not saying that they're gonna
change any other movies, and neither is he. I used the rant only as
evidence for the ET edit, and nothing else ;-)
Just to prove it to you, here's an article from the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0110310003oct31.story?null
Although they also rant about what's next a bit(mentioning Indy
shooting the guy like Harris mentioned ;-) )
Spectre
Oh, wait, upon rereading, you were asking for proof that they're
chaning Raiders, not ET.
Spectre
lady...@jedimasterlittlegreenguy.com (LadyJack V.) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:39:49 -0800, Spectre
><spectre45B...@yahoo.com> graced us with the following words of
>wisdom:
>
>>I'm pretty sure the E.T. edit is a sure thing. He quoted the producer
>>saying they're gonna change it. I'm not saying that they're gonna
>>change any other movies, and neither is he. I used the rant only as
>>evidence for the ET edit, and nothing else ;-)
>
>Yes, dippy, I know the ET edit is sure. It's in theaters already.
>I'm worried 'cause Rob said they were going to butcher *Raiders* next.
>Got a citation for THAT?
Oh, no, that's just pure conjecture.
Dalai Lama
> With Spielburg they chose five films, Raiders, ET, Close Encounters,
>Schindler's list, and Jaws. I'm in agreement with Jaws and Raiders.
>Especially Raiders since it is one of the most influencial films out there
>as far as character goes. I'm in disagreement with ET and Close Encounters
>both making the list, since I feel he did pretty much the same thing with
>them.
Close Encounters is almost there, but the one shortfall (imo) is that
when the characters finally get to meet the little people in the
spaceships, the *apparent* depth of emotions isn't strong enough, at
least if I was trying to judge best movies of all time.
> You'll be happy to know though that Speilburg has changed ET, taking out a comment about
>terrorists and making guns into walkie talkies with computers,
Revisionism is rampant among the brainless.
>and now he
>has his eyes set on Raiders.
It'll be interesting to see the scene where Harrison Ford aims his
walky talkie at the sword wielding guy and tells him to "play dead".
Perhaps some new gun legislation is in order: All body guards of
entertainment personalities (actors, directors, musicians) are
forbidden from carrying guns at any time, and can have nothing more
lethal than a walkie talkie. Furthermore, when an anrgy mob breaks
out, they are forbidden from violence, and must try to get the angry
mob to practice yoga to calm down.
> I'm a little upset Platoon made the list and Full Metal Jacket didn't,
I don't think either one was an all time great. Did they have "ridge
on the River Kwai"? If not, the whole list can be used for wrapping
fish.
> I was kind of upset that out of the six westerns on the list, Eastwood
>only had one, Unforgiven, since I feel a lot of his westerns prior to that
>had a different kind of influence on the industry. But I think he got
>screwed because of the fact that his best work was done in Italy instead
>of America, otherwise For a Few Dollars More would've made the list.
They left out the Good Bad and the Ugly? Worthless list.
>As it stands I have no idea what Stage Coach or The Searchers is about, so I
>can't comment. High Noon and the Wild Bunch deserve the list though. I
>didn't think Shane was that good of a movie, but I understand it's there
>because it was pretty much the father of the whole western genre of film.
> Out of the two animated movies, Snow White and Fantasia, I agree with
>the first but not the second.
Fantasia did forge some new ground, unfortunately, no one really
followed.
>Truman Show is a big one. Same with Stalag 13
That was an great one.
>> Could very well be. If the movie companies would quit whining
>> about technology laws and focuse on getting rental on demand (just
>> make the DIVX on the spot at the Blockbuster/Hollywood rental store),
>> there would be a lot more films I'd rent and buy. As it is now,
>> unless it's a private rental place that's been around since the 80's
>> they usually don't have jack for decent video rentals.
> You mean in terms of being sold out? I haven't noticed much of a
>problem at Hollywood with their DVDs. And new movies always come out
>Tuesday, so if you want the new stuff it's best to come in on Tuesday.
> If you mean inventory, sort of.
Yup. Instead of printing out a jillion copies of a DVD, they could
make them available on demand. You buy it, they burn it.
>Best Buy
I forget they have movies, have to look there.
>and Suncoast both have a very large selection.
So so selection. They get a good variety, but if you were to take
the total number of good films available on tape/dvd, the percentage
they will have at any time is abysmal. I can certainly appreciate
that they are in the business to make money, and can't have dollars
tied up in stocking low sellers. That is why I think the movie
industry needs to have the *full* selection available on demand. I
think movie sales would skyrocket.
> Honestly though, I usually end up buying the versions which are a bit
>more expensive, not for quality, but because I realize that the money goes
>towards non-profit film preservation groups a lot of times, and not into
>the hands of a second rate studio trying to make a few bucks of public
>domain property. In fact I would recomend buying instead of renting
If I remember the film well enough to know I'll like it, I will
definitely buy. With my habit of returning rentals late, it's
usually cheaper to buy than rent anyways!
--
Rob
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:12:14 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>
> > With Spielburg they chose five films, Raiders, ET, Close
Encounters,
> >Schindler's list, and Jaws. I'm in agreement with Jaws and Raiders.
> >Especially Raiders since it is one of the most influencial films out
there
> >as far as character goes. I'm in disagreement with ET and Close
Encounters
> >both making the list, since I feel he did pretty much the same thing
with
> >them.
>
> Close Encounters is almost there, but the one shortfall (imo) is that
> when the characters finally get to meet the little people in the
> spaceships, the *apparent* depth of emotions isn't strong enough, at
> least if I was trying to judge best movies of all time.
Well, Close Encounters was a hard concept to work with, trying to
capture what would be involved if a handful of folks from some town
realized they were about to make first contact with an alien lifeform.
Spielburg is probably the best guy that could be thought of to pull
something like that off. Kapra might've been able to do it to, but he
stayed away from Sci-Fi. Still, I think the same concept was also used in
ET, and I don't think the guy should be given credit twice for doing the
exact same thing.
> >and now he
> >has his eyes set on Raiders.
>
> It'll be interesting to see the scene where Harrison Ford aims his
> walky talkie at the sword wielding guy and tells him to "play dead".
I saw a post that went through every Spielburg film commenting on
possible revisions, ending with 'Saving Private Ryan' which opens with a
group of brave American soldiers subduing renegade hippies with nothing
but walkie talkies.
That scene though is being worried over. It wasn't originally planned,
and happened because Ford had a case of the runs that day and couldn't
stay on set long enough to have a fight scene. He made a joke about it,
and Spielburg thought it was a good idea. But it ended up being one of the
defining moments of Indy's character. Lucas has, however, said he wishes
now the scene would've gone as originally planned.
> Perhaps some new gun legislation is in order: All body guards of
> entertainment personalities (actors, directors, musicians) are
> forbidden from carrying guns at any time, and can have nothing more
> lethal than a walkie talkie. Furthermore, when an anrgy mob breaks
> out, they are forbidden from violence, and must try to get the angry
> mob to practice yoga to calm down.
What about guys like Terrentino and Rodriguez who use guns all the
time. Those guys' bodygaurds should be allowed to carry heavy explosives.
BTW, did you see Spy Kids? Personally, there was one huge fight scene near
the end that I think would've saved the movie, and the only reason it
probably wasn't done is because they sunk all that money into special
effects for that stupid tv show idea running in the background.
> > I'm a little upset Platoon made the list and Full Metal Jacket
didn't,
>
> I don't think either one was an all time great. Did they have "ridge
> on the River Kwai"? If not, the whole list can be used for wrapping
> fish.
Full Metal Jacket? Every vetren of that war I've talked to tends to
differ in opinion. And yes, The Bridge on the River Kwai made number 13.
> > I was kind of upset that out of the six westerns on the list,
Eastwood
> >only had one, Unforgiven, since I feel a lot of his westerns prior to
that
> >had a different kind of influence on the industry. But I think he got
> >screwed because of the fact that his best work was done in Italy
instead
> >of America, otherwise For a Few Dollars More would've made the list.
>
> They left out the Good Bad and the Ugly? Worthless list.
For a Few Dollars more is usually considered the best of the three
films, due partly to better editing than The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly,
so I figured it would have the best chance of making the list.
Unfortunatly all three are italian films, and the AFI list only covers
American films.
> Fantasia did forge some new ground, unfortunately, no one really
> followed.
I still think Mermaid would've been a better choice than Fantasia.
> >and Suncoast both have a very large selection.
>
> So so selection. They get a good variety, but if you were to take
> the total number of good films available on tape/dvd, the percentage
> they will have at any time is abysmal. I can certainly appreciate
> that they are in the business to make money, and can't have dollars
> tied up in stocking low sellers. That is why I think the movie
> industry needs to have the *full* selection available on demand. I
> think movie sales would skyrocket.
Some Suncoasts are stocked better than others, and it's based on how
much buisness they do. The one I go to is the best in town, and has a
selection only dwarfed by the virgin store, which is just too expensive
and in a place I don't like going to. If you want a particular movie
though, you can order it through Suncoast as long as it's still in print.
They'll order it and call you when it comes in, then you have like thirty
days to pick it up before it goes on the shelf. I had to go that route to
get a few missing volumes of anime.
> > Honestly though, I usually end up buying the versions which are a
bit
> >more expensive, not for quality, but because I realize that the money
goes
> >towards non-profit film preservation groups a lot of times, and not
into
> >the hands of a second rate studio trying to make a few bucks of public
> >domain property. In fact I would recomend buying instead of renting
>
> If I remember the film well enough to know I'll like it, I will
> definitely buy. With my habit of returning rentals late, it's
> usually cheaper to buy than rent anyways!
I have friends that do that. I'll go over there and see a tape and ask
them if they bought it. They'll tell me they're renting it. And then I'll
bring up the fact that they had the tape the last time I was over there,
last month. Personally I always get my tapes back on time. I don't want to
have to pay a late fee. They get expensive.
Dalai Lama
>> They left out the Good Bad and the Ugly? Worthless list.
> For a Few Dollars more is usually considered the best of the three
>films, due partly to better editing than The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly,
For a Few Dollars more is definitely tighter, but whether planned or
unplanned, the Good Bad and the Ugly's lack of the same tightness,
gives it a a sense or wide openess. You can really feel the
emptyness of the west. No laws, no fences, no sense of urgency other
than what you bring to each day. The entire opening, with it's lack
of dialogue is brilliant.
>so I figured it would have the best chance of making the list.
>Unfortunatly all three are italian films, and the AFI list only covers
>American films.
Didn't catch that part. I don't understand why they didn't just pick
the best 100 films of all time. Either its the best or its not-
where it was made shouldn't matter.
>> Fantasia did forge some new ground, unfortunately, no one really
>> followed.
> I still think Mermaid would've been a better choice than Fantasia.
The Little Mermaid did rejuvenate animation, and is a better film in
most ways than Fantasia. Fantasia does have a sense of magic and
mystery to it, that the Little Mermaid doesn't have however.
Fantasia isn't flawless, but perfection isn't everything.
> Some Suncoasts are stocked better than others, and it's based on how
>much buisness they do. The one I go to is the best in town, and has a
>selection only dwarfed by the virgin store, which is just too expensive
>and in a place I don't like going to. If you want a particular movie
>though, you can order it through Suncoast as long as it's still in print.
In Print, out of print. It shouldn't matter. Not with something
that's digitized. Good thing the entertainment industry isn't in
charge of sunshine. Sorry, the Sun is out of print, you'll have to
wait another five years.
>They'll order it and call you when it comes in, then you have like thirty
>days to pick it up before it goes on the shelf. I had to go that route to
>get a few missing volumes of anime.
Done that a few times, but they'd make more money off me (and others I
suspect) if I didn't have to wait. Impulse buying is what they need,
but apparently making big profits isn't important to them. Not
taking risks is the key to whatever it is that corporations think they
do well.
--
Rob
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:20:30 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>
> >> They left out the Good Bad and the Ugly? Worthless list.
>
> > For a Few Dollars more is usually considered the best of the three
> >films, due partly to better editing than The Good, The Bad, and the
Ugly,
>
> For a Few Dollars more is definitely tighter, but whether planned or
> unplanned, the Good Bad and the Ugly's lack of the same tightness,
> gives it a a sense or wide openess. You can really feel the
> emptyness of the west. No laws, no fences, no sense of urgency other
> than what you bring to each day. The entire opening, with it's lack
> of dialogue is brilliant.
The lack of dialogue was pretty much required to make it work. You
think these guys have met for some sort of shoot out between each other,
and it turns out they're actually going after a fourth man.
> >so I figured it would have the best chance of making the list.
> >Unfortunatly all three are italian films, and the AFI list only covers
> >American films.
>
> Didn't catch that part. I don't understand why they didn't just pick
> the best 100 films of all time. Either its the best or its not-
> where it was made shouldn't matter.
Lot's of reasons. For one thing, the BFI did their list, which came
out earlier, on only British films. Also I think picking a hundred films
from American Cinema over 100 years is hard enough, but world cinema opens
a lot more things up. And there's a stylistic concept. American films do
generally have a style to them based in the culture, the same as forgien
films from various countries. Even if they did open the list to the entire
world, more than likely there wouldn't have been more than a dozen forgien
films on the list. And the AFI is concerned with perserving American
films, so it probably thought it best to promote the films it was trying
to preserve. And from an influencial POV, american films have had the
strongest infleunce on American Cinema. And if they came out with a list
of the world's greatest films, about two dozen people would care enough to
go out and watch them.
> > I still think Mermaid would've been a better choice than Fantasia.
>
> The Little Mermaid did rejuvenate animation, and is a better film in
> most ways than Fantasia. Fantasia does have a sense of magic and
> mystery to it, that the Little Mermaid doesn't have however.
> Fantasia isn't flawless, but perfection isn't everything.
But from the side of influence on animation in general, Mermaid is
definetly bigger. American animation made a big change after Mermaid came
out, and it's probably a bit more than coincedence that Mermaid's release
happened to coincide with Spielburg's start in animation (which
encompasses Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, Freekazoid, and
Historia), and the begining of the anime market in the US. If you look at
animation, Mermaid was the first animated childrens anything of the
eighties to really try to make itself appealing to adults (There were
others, such as Mighty Mouse and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but niether
did too well outside of small adult fanbases, and the seventies weren't
even suitable for underage viewing. When animation passed into the
ninties, there wasn't anything animated that didn't try to have adult
appeal out there, at least not anything that was successful.
> > Some Suncoasts are stocked better than others, and it's based on
how
> >much buisness they do. The one I go to is the best in town, and has a
> >selection only dwarfed by the virgin store, which is just too expensive
> >and in a place I don't like going to. If you want a particular movie
> >though, you can order it through Suncoast as long as it's still in
print.
>
> In Print, out of print. It shouldn't matter. Not with something
> that's digitized. Good thing the entertainment industry isn't in
> charge of sunshine. Sorry, the Sun is out of print, you'll have to
> wait another five years.
Well, the way it used to work is a company would do a run of a lot of
copies to meet demand. After a while demand would cease, and there'd be a
warehouse somewhere filled with video tapes. Those were then distributed
over a few years until they ran out. Usually by that time demand would
become so low that it wasn't worth the cost to run another set of copies.
So the movie would remain out of print for a few years until demand picked
up enough to sell copies, and the process would be repeated. With the
exception of Disney, I don't think any studio has limited runs in an
attempt to raise demand. And I've found almost everything OOP that I
wanted new by searching in the right places.
>
> >They'll order it and call you when it comes in, then you have like
thirty
> >days to pick it up before it goes on the shelf. I had to go that route
to
> >get a few missing volumes of anime.
>
> Done that a few times, but they'd make more money off me (and others I
> suspect) if I didn't have to wait. Impulse buying is what they need,
> but apparently making big profits isn't important to them. Not
> taking risks is the key to whatever it is that corporations think they
> do well.
Yeah, well, see how much it costs you to rent a store inside the mall,
and then figure if you can afford to rent enough space to stock every
movie imaginable, and take into consideration that on top of rent for the
extra space you'll also be tying a lot of your money up in inventory
that's going to sit on the shelf for months and months. Plus if a store
like Suncoast kept everything in stock every day, there'd never be a sale.
Spectre
wrote:
I'm not really overly fond of Suncoast anyway. Everything other than
new releases(which are usually on sale for the first couple days) are
sold at list price, sometimes higher. Best Buy generally sells for
slightly under list price, and places on the net can sometimes be
cheaper than Suncoast, even after you take shipping into
consideration. I don't think I've ever bought a movie at Suncoast,
and the only reason I can think of to buy from Suncoast is if they
happen to have some sort of hard to find movie that you just can't get
anywhere else. Most of my dvd purchases lately(i.e. almost anything
that isn't anime or Monty Python) were impulse buys made at work, or
at Wal Mart. We'd get a dvd assortment in, I'll see a movie I kinda
like, it's cheap, I'll buy it. That's how I managed to get Time
Bandits on dvd, along with Hackers, Stigmata, Dr. Strangelove, Stir of
Echoes, Ninth Gate, MiB, Sleepy Hollow, K-Pax(bought it today, haven't
even seen it before), and probably a few more I'm forgetting. I saw
what looked to be a nw pallet display of dvd's back on the receiving
dock today, so I may buy a couple more tomorrow, too.
Dalai Lama
> Yeah, well, see how much it costs you to rent a store inside the mall,
>and then figure if you can afford to rent enough space to stock every
>movie imaginable,
You could store several thousand DVD's Jukebox style, not taking up
much space at all. A few industrial burners and printers (for the
inserts) and away you go with minimal stock or storage space.
Imagine if you turned on the TV, flipped the cable channel and
selected a pay per view film, but instead of getting the film from the
cable, they had to mail order a physical copy from a warehouse to you.
The video stores are still in the dark age of distribution.
>and take into consideration that on top of rent for the
>extra space you'll also be tying a lot of your money up in inventory
>that's going to sit on the shelf for months and months. Plus if a store
>like Suncoast kept everything in stock every day, there'd never be a sale.
95% of the time, sales are imaginary things. Do you think a
department store really cares that it's Father's Day? Sales are
conjectured to give people impetus to buy now, rather than later.
Tons of revenue are spent just trying to draw the customers interest,
and once they are in the store, you want them to buy right now, not
later. Giving them the ability to take something home right now,
versus ordering, or waiting 2 years for an anniversary re-release is a
huge incentive. It is more of an incentive than the possible
background fear that something will go out of print for awhile.
Granted, it may not seem that way, and many businesses learn the hard
way. In the case of the entertainment industry, the hard way not
only includes loss of potential revenue from would be buyers, but a
long term loss of future revenue from piracy. The big entertainment
companies can profit by this knowledge, or they will be destroyed by
it.
Governmental intervention can only do so much. Once wireless
broadband ISP's become the norm, and you can choose from ISPs from
anywhere on the globe, you can be certain that the ill considered
protectionism laws will no longer prop up pathetic entertainment
conglomerates. I forget where I read it (Foxnews.com?) but Sony,
for example, makes far more money from it's electronics than it does
from it's entertainment division, so much so that they stand to lose
far more money than they would protect with new governmental schemes.
China won't have any problems producing whatever electronics or
pirated entertainment the rest of the world needs. The corporate
world is no less ruthless than the biological one. Entertainment
companies can adapt, or they will die. Bankruptcy is always just
around the corner, and bankrupt companies won't be telling anyone how
to do anything. Real market pressures, however, fail to evaporate
just because of artificial barriers, like laws or man made shortages.
If anything, these things excaberate pressures and bring about change
even more quickly. Senators who think it'll be just peachy for
ecveryone to have to buy new CD/DVD players -just so they can cater to
the latest industry copyright protectionist scheme- will be in afor a
big surprise when they get routed from office and replaced with people
who will likely decide that copyrights and patents need to be
revisited and revamped in favor of the consumer.
The industries may seem to be an immovable object, but they will move
before the irreristable force of demand.
--
Rob
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:15:14 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, well, see how much it costs you to rent a store inside the
mall,
> >and then figure if you can afford to rent enough space to stock every
> >movie imaginable,
>
> You could store several thousand DVD's Jukebox style, not taking up
> much space at all. A few industrial burners and printers (for the
> inserts) and away you go with minimal stock or storage space.
> Imagine if you turned on the TV, flipped the cable channel and
> selected a pay per view film, but instead of getting the film from the
> cable, they had to mail order a physical copy from a warehouse to you.
> The video stores are still in the dark age of distribution.
However, that route leaves open a lot of opportunity for abuse.
There's already claims of problems with movie theaters defrauding certain
distributers/studios by attributing sales to the wrong film. Just imagine
how a system such as yours could be abused. Sales could go unregistered,
employees could be burning copies for their buddies, ect. Not to mention
such a system would more than likely not be available to smaller chains
and single stores, the same way they don't get new videos to sell prior to
the official release date. Only the largest companies that could be kept
in check by not being able to keep secrets would be able to take advantage
of such a system. And even then it's flawed since there's no piece of
physical merchandise to inventory.
> >and take into consideration that on top of rent for the
> >extra space you'll also be tying a lot of your money up in inventory
> >that's going to sit on the shelf for months and months. Plus if a store
> >like Suncoast kept everything in stock every day, there'd never be a
sale.
>
> 95% of the time, sales are imaginary things. Do you think a
> department store really cares that it's Father's Day?
They are also created to unload overstocked inventory (seasonal
inventory and older inventory being taken off the shelf is almost always
discounted) and it's used as a means to get customers into the store. Most
store managers are very aware of how well and how badly their sales go,
especially when the sale is initiated by them as opposed to an industry
standard, and when the really higher ups come to visit, they're vocal
about how well a particular sale works in practice.
Sales are
> conjectured to give people impetus to buy now, rather than later.
> Tons of revenue are spent just trying to draw the customers interest,
> and once they are in the store, you want them to buy right now, not
> later. Giving them the ability to take something home right now,
> versus ordering, or waiting 2 years for an anniversary re-release is a
> huge incentive. It is more of an incentive than the possible
> background fear that something will go out of print for awhile.
> Granted, it may not seem that way, and many businesses learn the hard
> way. In the case of the entertainment industry, the hard way not
> only includes loss of potential revenue from would be buyers, but a
> long term loss of future revenue from piracy. The big entertainment
> companies can profit by this knowledge, or they will be destroyed by
> it.
And with your burning strategy you eliminate all needs for a sale.
First off there isn't overstock to discount. Secondly, their isn't
merchandise on display to bring impulse buys. People will just walk in and
order what they want, and the normal price will be the sale price. That's
how Amazon works, and it's able to negotiate lower than list prices by
buying a lot of stock and selling a lot of merchandise, and placing it
accordingly on their website. A local store, OTOH, is only able to compete
because it has a store front and a person can walk in and come out with a
product without having to wait to have it delivered, or worry about the
hassle involved with a defective product.
> Governmental intervention can only do so much. Once wireless
> broadband ISP's become the norm, and you can choose from ISPs from
> anywhere on the globe, you can be certain that the ill considered
> protectionism laws will no longer prop up pathetic entertainment
> conglomerates. I forget where I read it (Foxnews.com?) but Sony,
> for example, makes far more money from it's electronics than it does
> from it's entertainment division, so much so that they stand to lose
> far more money than they would protect with new governmental schemes.
Sony considers their computer and video games part of their electronic
department, not their entertainment department. The games are what account
for the majority of Sony's sales in rescent years, and they are protected
under copyright, patent, and trademark laws, and it's essential to Sony's
current profits that those works remain protected. Sony isn't about to
throw in the towel yet. Notice they don't sell blank CDs and DVDs that can
be burned and played on their systems, even though they could and it'd
probably sell very well.
> China won't have any problems producing whatever electronics or
> pirated entertainment the rest of the world needs.
China will, since it has been trying to bring piracy under control for
the last few years to open up trade agreements with other nations and step
into the global market. Better examples would be countries like Tiawan
that have no want to conform to international copyright treaties. But
their products are still illegal as soon as they reach a country that does
conform to the treaty, and their economy is suffering more than it's
gaining from the loose laws. There's little chance that any of those
countries are going to get a large entertainment market of their own when
anyone can turn around and produce cheap copies for sale.
The corporate
> world is no less ruthless than the biological one. Entertainment
> companies can adapt, or they will die. Bankruptcy is always just
> around the corner, and bankrupt companies won't be telling anyone how
> to do anything. Real market pressures, however, fail to evaporate
> just because of artificial barriers, like laws or man made shortages.
> If anything, these things excaberate pressures and bring about change
> even more quickly. Senators who think it'll be just peachy for
> ecveryone to have to buy new CD/DVD players -just so they can cater to
> the latest industry copyright protectionist scheme- will be in afor a
> big surprise when they get routed from office and replaced with people
> who will likely decide that copyrights and patents need to be
> revisited and revamped in favor of the consumer.
I've heard about your wanted revisions to the laws, and they don't
seem too well thought out. Several are meant to keep larger companies in
check, but you end up destroying the smaller artists in the process. If
you put a twenty year maximization on a copyright, that'll mean the
difference for some people between being able to make 5,000 and 500
dollars on a work they spent years creating. I mean minimum time for
buying rights to a book and publishing it is like two years, and the same
goes for film. And you have to remember that a lot of people end up
spending a lot of years before they make that sale. And a lot of times an
artist won't see anything from a work until it's been in print for twenty
years and they have enough to put together a completion. You're only
looking at the laws from one side, and you seem to not acknowledge how
copyright laws effect people trying to make a living on a smaller scale.
Sure there are some very rich artists out there who could have all
their work released to public domain and would still have more money than
their great-grandchildren will ever be able to squander. But on the other
hand you have people who aren't even able to live without a second full
time job who are publishing works that are critically acclaimed.
Dalai Lama
> However, that route leaves open a lot of opportunity for abuse.
Yup. You are 100% correct on that call. Still, if they plan for it,
they can minimize the abuse, and like many business pitfalls, I think
the revenue gained will be far more than the revenue lost.
>There's already claims of problems with movie theaters defrauding certain
>distributers/studios by attributing sales to the wrong film. Just imagine
>how a system such as yours could be abused. Sales could go unregistered,
>employees could be burning copies for their buddies, ect. Not to mention
>such a system would more than likely not be available to smaller chains
>and single stores, the same way they don't get new videos to sell prior to
>the official release date. Only the largest companies that could be kept
>in check by not being able to keep secrets would be able to take advantage
>of such a system. And even then it's flawed since there's no piece of
>physical merchandise to inventory.
They could seal the machines and charge a flat rate per disc used.
Someone would come around and fill up the machines with hundreds of
blank discs on a monthly,weekly or as needed basis.
> And with your burning strategy you eliminate all needs for a sale.
Au contraire :-) The need for a sale is only the need for the company
to increase revenue. That need will never go away.
>First off there isn't overstock to discount.
"Oops the manager bought too many blank discs and we need to clear
them out"
>Secondly, their isn't merchandise on display to bring impulse buys.
You could still have racks with inserts, and you could make them
bigger and more compelling than the dinky ones put in a dvd case.
>People will just walk in and order what they want, and the normal price will be the sale price.
You could have all sorts of sales:
manufacturer's sales: "All Sony DVD's 15% off"
monthly theme sales: "October is Slasher Movie Month- buy 1horror DVD
and we'll slash the price of the second one to half off."
DVD club sales: "Join the Blockbuster SCi-FI club and receive 25% off
selected titles each month"
"Three for Thursdays Sale during Febuary- buy 2 DVD's and get the
third one free every Thursday."
A sale *should* be credible, but it doesn't have to be. All it needs
to do is bring the perceived value of the product past the consumer's
desired purchase price.
> That's how Amazon works, and it's able to negotiate lower than list prices by
>buying a lot of stock and selling a lot of merchandise,
All other things being equal- if a competitor was able to sell the
same merchandise for 25% of the price what would happen to Amazon.com?
> and placing it accordingly on their website. A local store, OTOH, is only able to compete
>because it has a store front and a person can walk in and come out with a
>product without having to wait to have it delivered, or worry about the
>hassle involved with a defective product.
But this way the local store could compete price wise *and* give
instant product gratification. Amazon.com would go under and total
DVD sales would skyrocket.
>> China won't have any problems producing whatever electronics or
>> pirated entertainment the rest of the world needs.
> China will, since it has been trying to bring piracy under control for
>the last few years to open up trade agreements with other nations and step
>into the global market.
They are only pretending to do that :-)
>Better examples would be countries like Tiawan that have no want to conform to international copyright treaties.
Taiwan is better than China in some areas, and worse in others.
Overall, it is the same mindset regarding piracy.
> I've heard about your wanted revisions to the laws, and they don't
>seem too well thought out. Several are meant to keep larger companies in
>check, but you end up destroying the smaller artists in the process. If
>you put a twenty year maximization on a copyright, that'll mean the
>difference for some people between being able to make 5,000 and 500
>dollars on a work they spent years creating. I mean minimum time for
>buying rights to a book and publishing it is like two years, and the same
>goes for film. And you have to remember that a lot of people end up
>spending a lot of years before they make that sale. And a lot of times an
>artist won't see anything from a work until it's been in print for twenty
>years and they have enough to put together a completion. You're only
>looking at the laws from one side, and you seem to not acknowledge how
>copyright laws effect people trying to make a living on a smaller scale.
I hear what you are saying there, especially when the creator of the
work is receiving small royalties and it is only the combined total of
roaylaty revenue that allows them to continue. I do still think
there needs to be limits, but the method of achieving them can vary
from one kind of art to another, and there can be a monetary factor
put in there so that someone who hasn't profited much yet, won't be
penalized. Perhaps some sort of reversion clause where a company
can buy the rights for an album, book or painting from the creator,
but after a set time they revert back to the original artists- no
matter what legal schenanigans they try to use to get around them.
Movies would be an entirely different problem, since there isn't just
one or two or even a small group of creators.
> Sure there are some very rich artists out there who could have all
>their work released to public domain and would still have more money than
>their great-grandchildren will ever be able to squander. But on the other
>hand you have people who aren't even able to live without a second full
>time job who are publishing works that are critically acclaimed.
As long as the work they are trying to sell is still available.
(another case for music/film/books on demand) If they have abandoned
it and its gone out of print, the original publisher should lose the
rights and have them revert to the author- if the author is unwilling
to make their work available, then after a limited time, it can be
published by others- and there coud still be minimum royalty clauses,
so that it isn't a freebie.
--
Rob
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:59:28 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>
> > However, that route leaves open a lot of opportunity for abuse.
>
> Yup. You are 100% correct on that call. Still, if they plan for it,
> they can minimize the abuse, and like many business pitfalls, I think
> the revenue gained will be far more than the revenue lost.
Hang on a second.
> >There's already claims of problems with movie theaters defrauding
certain
> >distributers/studios by attributing sales to the wrong film. Just
imagine
> >how a system such as yours could be abused. Sales could go
unregistered,
> >employees could be burning copies for their buddies, ect. Not to
mention
> >such a system would more than likely not be available to smaller chains
> >and single stores, the same way they don't get new videos to sell prior
to
> >the official release date. Only the largest companies that could be
kept
> >in check by not being able to keep secrets would be able to take
advantage
> >of such a system. And even then it's flawed since there's no piece of
> >physical merchandise to inventory.
>
> They could seal the machines and charge a flat rate per disc used.
> Someone would come around and fill up the machines with hundreds of
> blank discs on a monthly,weekly or as needed basis.
Well, if you did that every company would need their own machine. If
you have Sony offering DVDs at a five dollar royalty, and Warner brothers
at a four dollar royalty, what's to stop a crafty shop owner from
tampering with his machine to make it sell Sony DVDs as if they were WB,
and send the Sony profits to WB.
That being the case, these companies aren't going to supply machines
for free to small buisnesses due to cost. Those buisnesses will either
have to put up the money for the machines themselves, or do without. And
smaller companies won't be able to supply any machines. Sure Sony or WB
could afford it. But what about the smaller companies? The film
preservation groups, the forgien film translators, ect. They're going to
be forced to get distribution from one of the big companies, if any will
take them. And then the method starts to destroy the smaller buisnesses.
And how much will this cost? You need to make the machines tamper
proof. You need truck drivers to deliver discs, and they're union. You
need to upgrade the machines every two or three years, to stop piracy
because you're training techs how to manipulate them, and then you need to
retrain the new techs on the equipment, you need to have someone to add
new programming every week. And then you need plain clothes agents to
check out the local retailers just to make sure you're not being cheated.
And you need defeatable undefeatable anti-copy technology, since you're
making a copy you don't want copied. I think in the end, the discount
wouldn't be so much compared to the added cost that would result from
trying to make sure your company got its full share. And customers would
be cheated out of packaging. I don't know about everyone, but I have all
but one of my original movie boxes. Less than twenty percent are in less
than mint condition, due mostly used movie buys, and all of my DVD cases
are in mint conditions with all the inserts, except for the win a free
film library cards. They're like that for a reason. I like the damn boxes.
I like looking at the artwork, and reading the back covers, ect. If they
came with free theater posters for five dollars more, I'd still buy 'em
and be even more happy. I don't want some generic box like they have at
the video store. I want my cases.
> >First off there isn't overstock to discount.
>
> "Oops the manager bought too many blank discs and we need to clear
> them out"
Exactly how can you buy too many blank discs? I mean, they aren't all
that hard to store, unless he was a very bad manager and bought like a
years supply for the current week. And they don't go bad.
I used to complain about this all the time at an old job. We had lots
of storage space. We had space in the store. Lot's of it. Freezer space,
shelfs, drive through window areas, ect. Meanwhile we get our normal
shipment every two weeks (Some perishables like bread came seperate
locally like every two days). Every two weeks they would under order stuff
like cups, and cup covers, and napkins, and straws. And then they'd have
to pay another store for their inventory, and owe a favor, and get in
trouble. Why the hell didn't they just over order instead? I mean, if we
get stuck with the stuff, it's still going to be good two weeks from now.
Paper doesn't go bad. And we had the storage space to accomadate quite a
bit more than we could use in two weeks.
> >Secondly, their isn't merchandise on display to bring impulse buys.
>
> You could still have racks with inserts, and you could make them
> bigger and more compelling than the dinky ones put in a dvd case.
Those only work when a customer has to go there to get it. If a
customer can walk to the front register and ask for what they want, they
aren't going to bother walking through the store and picking things up on
impulse. You could put the registers in back, but that would be unwise if
you sell anything other than movies. That stuff would just disappear with
the customers.
> DVD club sales: "Join the Blockbuster SCi-FI club and receive 25% off
> selected titles each month"
My clubs never pay off like they should. I can never get down to the
place on the day they actually have the damn sale.
> > That's how Amazon works, and it's able to negotiate lower than list
prices by
> >buying a lot of stock and selling a lot of merchandise,
>
> All other things being equal- if a competitor was able to sell the
> same merchandise for 25% of the price what would happen to Amazon.com?
Competitors will never be able to beat out Amazon prices. It sells in
large volumes, meaning it can get the merchandise at a much lower price.
And it doesn't have overhead from a store house. It has only the
wharehouse end of a store.
> But this way the local store could compete price wise *and* give
> instant product gratification. Amazon.com would go under and total
> DVD sales would skyrocket.
I doubt it. For one thing, if a company like Sony could offer their
DVDs at a cheaper price, but they already know you're willing to buy it
for twenty dollars, they aren't going to lower that price. Sure their
competitors could. But the movie industry is a tight competitive monopoly,
and product substutions just don't work. Every kid one day learns the
lesson that when they ask grandma to get them a cartoon, they better state
it's the one made by disney, otherwise it's a waste of money.
> >Better examples would be countries like Tiawan that have no want to
conform to international copyright treaties.
>
> Taiwan is better than China in some areas, and worse in others.
> Overall, it is the same mindset regarding piracy.
And Taiwan is a horrible place for an artist to look for employment.
But some works are only out of print in theory, and some works are out
of print without the conscent of the creator/publisher. Take movies. Some
OOP movies can be found in the sales racks of several stores, two or three
years after they've gone out of print. They haven't done a run in a long
time, but they're still selling the backstock from last time. And a lot of
books are pulled off the shelf not because the author or the publisher
wanted them off, but because the stores wanted the space for something
else.
> Sure there are some very rich artists out there who could have all
> >their work released to public domain and would still have more money
than
> >their great-grandchildren will ever be able to squander. But on the
other
> >hand you have people who aren't even able to live without a second full
> >time job who are publishing works that are critically acclaimed.
>
> As long as the work they are trying to sell is still available.
> (another case for music/film/books on demand) If they have abandoned
> it and its gone out of print, the original publisher should lose the
> rights and have them revert to the author- if the author is unwilling
> to make their work available, then after a limited time, it can be
> published by others- and there coud still be minimum royalty clauses,
> so that it isn't a freebie.
Still, a lot of Authors would detest this. Suppose you wrote a novel.
After three months it was pulled from the shelf. Four years later you
still haven't gained enough demand to be able to afford another run (which
is like minimum 5000 copies, or you're paying the same price). The work
goes into the semi-public domain thing. Now some publisher picks it up,
hands it over to a hack, and he mangles it, adds a half dozen sex scenes,
a lot of action and gore, and cuts five chapters because he felt they
didn't really work, and then it's released with your name on it and you
receive the royalties. It be a horrible time to live in. Like how that
stupid judge let some hack get away with 'The wind be gone' by
misinterpreting the fair use under parodies exception.
Dalai Lama
> Well, if you did that every company would need their own machine. If
>you have Sony offering DVDs at a five dollar royalty, and Warner brothers
>at a four dollar royalty, what's to stop a crafty shop owner from
>tampering with his machine to make it sell Sony DVDs as if they were WB,
>and send the Sony profits to WB.
You could have a third party making the machines, licensing them,
inspecting the seals and restocking them.
> That being the case, these companies aren't going to supply machines
>for free to small buisnesses due to cost. Those buisnesses will either
>have to put up the money for the machines themselves, or do without. And
>smaller companies won't be able to supply any machines.
See above.
> And how much will this cost?
Initial investment in development would be big, but after that it
wouldn't cost that much per machine. Less than a year's worth of
losses from overstocking or understocking.
>You need to make the machines tamper proof.
Yup.
> You need truck drivers to deliver discs
Same company that leases the machines, would stock them and check the
vending meters- they woudn't collect the money from vending, but they
would get a cut back from the royalties.
>, and they're union. You need to upgrade the machines every two or three years, to stop piracy
Not too much upgrading. Much of the securty measures would be low
tech, some of them could be real time connections with oustide firm-
say a request to authorize a burning of Born Free- the outside firm
sends back an encoded approval # and logs the fee. The approval
numbers could be on an HD with a secured CMOS. The software doesn't
have to be real flexible, just needs to be secure and work. Done
properly, they'd probably only have to change out a MOBO and a chipset
every few years to keep things secure.
>because you're training techs how to manipulate them,
Nah, only a very few techs at the factory, and what they would work
on would be firmware. On site repairs would consist of swapping bad
parts for replacement ones, then shipping the old ones back.
>and then you need to retrain the new techs on the equipment, you need to have someone to add
>new programming every week.
No new programming unless there is a hardware change. Build them so
the system won't even allow it. We're not talking about a PC here,
we're talking about a dedicated machine. It doesn't have to do
Windows or run any known programs. Heck, if they want to, it doesn't
have to follow standard assembly code.
>And then you need plain clothes agents to
>check out the local retailers just to make sure you're not being cheated.
>And you need defeatable undefeatable anti-copy technology, since you're
>making a copy you don't want copied.
That would be impossible, and illegal. People have the right to
backups.
> I think in the end, the discount wouldn't be so much compared to the added cost that would result from
>trying to make sure your company got its full share.
The discount of virtual zero inventory? That is huge. Once the
machines had been out for a few years your local convenience store
could afford to run one.
>And customers would be cheated out of packaging. I don't know about everyone, but I have all
>but one of my original movie boxes.
Professional printing machines are available, and in volume would be
cheap. You could do the packaging on the fly as well (its all just
paper inserts anyhow).
>Less than twenty percent are in less than mint condition,
This way, people could replace torn inserts and have a box that was
just like new.
> due mostly used movie buys, and all of my DVD cases
>are in mint conditions with all the inserts, except for the win a free
>film library cards. They're like that for a reason. I like the damn boxes.
>I like looking at the artwork, and reading the back covers, ect. If they
>came with free theater posters for five dollars more, I'd still buy 'em
>and be even more happy.
See, add on sales :-) With on the fly printing, you could probably
choose from various movie posters, and get them in a variety of sizes.
It will all happen anyways, through cable companies first, then
online on demand retailing from the entertainment companies
themselves, then in store on demand sales. If nothing else big
companies will open a few test stores and run a pilot program.
It would work far better if the companies planned for it now, and
began working on standards and how to operate the vending, leasing,
licensing aspects. The technology is secondary- it can be made to
fit the bill.
> I don't want some generic box like they have at
>the video store. I want my cases.
Yup. I do too. That would be simple enough to do.
>> >First off there isn't overstock to discount.
>>
>> "Oops the manager bought too many blank discs and we need to clear
>> them out"
>
> Exactly how can you buy too many blank discs?
As I said before, most sales are excuses- manufactured excuses. The
overstocking of videos isn't accidental. They do it because they know
they'll sell the same quantity at intial price,and they know they'll
have to mark down a bunch of copies anyhow. By buying them all at
once, it bringsthe shipping price down, and creates the illusion of
excess stock, which makes the sale seem real. Stores know fairly
well how a movie will sell, and with decent oversight would seldom end
up with real overstocking issues.
>I mean, they aren't all that hard to store,
Niether are DVDs- just stack them in boxes, and they don't go bad
either.
> I used to complain about this all the time at an old job. We had lots
>of storage space. We had space in the store. Lot's of it. Freezer space,
>shelfs, drive through window areas, ect. Meanwhile we get our normal
>shipment every two weeks (Some perishables like bread came seperate
>locally like every two days). Every two weeks they would under order stuff
>like cups, and cup covers, and napkins, and straws. And then they'd have
>to pay another store for their inventory, and owe a favor, and get in
>trouble.
Sounds like mgmt needed some training, or some better tracking
methods. Its not that hard to do, once you know what you are doing.
>Why the hell didn't they just over order instead?
Because it ties up a lot of money, and lowers your GMROI (gross margin
return on investment). High turn items can be overstocked more than
low turn items, as can items where the vendor gives you net terms that
are equal or greater than the time it takes to sell (a turn) an item.
> I mean, if we
>get stuck with the stuff, it's still going to be good two weeks from now.
>Paper doesn't go bad. And we had the storage space to accomadate quite a
>bit more than we could use in two weeks.
Out of stock=lost sales. Overstock=Sunk cost. That's why
inventory on demand would work so well. Some manufacturers are
trying to work out on demand processing for real world items -like
bolts - as well. It's coming down the pipes, just a matter of when.
>> >Secondly, their isn't merchandise on display to bring impulse buys.
>>
>> You could still have racks with inserts, and you could make them
>> bigger and more compelling than the dinky ones put in a dvd case.
>
> Those only work when a customer has to go there to get it. If a
>customer can walk to the front register and ask for what they want,
Ever notice how some of the sale items (at a well run store) are at
the back? You can put the machine at the back of the store- you
could even have some advertising running on the machine. With less
inventory space needed, you can create all sorts of visual displays.
> Competitors will never be able to beat out Amazon prices. It sells in
>large volumes, meaning it can get the merchandise at a much lower price.
Done properly, Blade's store could sell DVD's cheaper than Amazon.com
can with it's current methodology. Go to a used bookstore and
notice how much cheaper their books are than Amazon.com's, and that's
WITH stock and overstock risks.
>And it doesn't have overhead from a store house. It has only the
>wharehouse end of a store.
It is still money invested that has to generate a profit.
>> But this way the local store could compete price wise *and* give
>> instant product gratification. Amazon.com would go under and total
>> DVD sales would skyrocket.
> I doubt it. For one thing, if a company like Sony could offer their
>DVDs at a cheaper price, but they already know you're willing to buy it
>for twenty dollars, they aren't going to lower that price.
They don't get twenty dollars. They *might* get 8 or nine. Figure a
100% markup in general on any merchandise, plus all the shipping
handling and overhead fees.
>Sure their competitors could. But the movie industry is a tight competitive monopoly,
Not very competitive at all. Look at the lack of variation in movie
ticket prices.
>and product substutions just don't work.
They sure don't.
>Every kid one day learns the
>lesson that when they ask grandma to get them a cartoon, they better state
>it's the one made by disney, otherwise it's a waste of money.
>> >Better examples would be countries like Tiawan that have no want to
>conform to international copyright treaties.
>>
>> Taiwan is better than China in some areas, and worse in others.
>> Overall, it is the same mindset regarding piracy.
> And Taiwan is a horrible place for an artist to look for employment.
Even with the same laws as here, it would still be miserable for
artists. New York and LA aren't better for musicians than some
other city because of their laws, but because of their venues.
> But some works are only out of print in theory, and some works are out
>of print without the conscent of the creator/publisher. Take movies. Some
>OOP movies can be found in the sales racks of several stores, two or three
>years after they've gone out of print. They haven't done a run in a long
>time, but they're still selling the backstock from last time.
Wasted investment costs :-( WIth on-demans sales, that problem
would vanish.
>And a lot of books are pulled off the shelf not because the author or the publisher
>wanted them off, but because the stores wanted the space for something
>else.
Shelf space at most bookstores is very limited. Having to have
umpteen copies of the latest best seller doesn't help either. Look
at most sci-fi/fantasy sections right now, and notice how many books
have been displaced to make room for gobs of Tolkien books. It's
sad, and it needn't happen.
>> As long as the work they are trying to sell is still available.
>> (another case for music/film/books on demand) If they have abandoned
>> it and its gone out of print, the original publisher should lose the
>> rights and have them revert to the author- if the author is unwilling
>> to make their work available, then after a limited time, it can be
>> published by others- and there coud still be minimum royalty clauses,
>> so that it isn't a freebie.
> Still, a lot of Authors would detest this. Suppose you wrote a novel.
>After three months it was pulled from the shelf. Four years later you
>still haven't gained enough demand to be able to afford another run (which
>is like minimum 5000 copies, or you're paying the same price).
Once again, copies on demand would solve this. (this one would take
some technolgy to make it work, but where there is a will there is a
way).
> The work goes into the semi-public domain thing. Now some publisher picks it up,
>hands it over to a hack, and he mangles it,
I didn't say they had any rights to edit or redo or create any
derivative works- just the right to put it back in publication, so
long as they pay the author the assigned percentage.
> Like how that stupid judge let some hack get away with 'The wind be gone' by
>misinterpreting the fair use under parodies exception.
I don't know of that specific incident, but in general Parodies are
fair game- if a viewer confuses Hardware Wars with Star Wars, then so
be it.
--
Larry
In article <3ca3560c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, daiail...@aol.com
says...
> I don't know of that specific incident, but in general Parodies are
> fair game- if a viewer confuses Hardware Wars with Star Wars, then so
> be it.
>
>
That would be difficult, but funny. "And I love the part where Chewbacca
takes a bite of Leia's head, and she's not even hurt, and it's so weird
when nobody can understand Darth Vader!" Where was Star Wars ranked on
that 100 Best Movies list? Did you know that Hardware Wars is coming out
on DVD next month? It's been 25 years ...
Larry
Rob
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:19:21 -0800, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, if you did that every company would need their own machine.
If
> >you have Sony offering DVDs at a five dollar royalty, and Warner
brothers
> >at a four dollar royalty, what's to stop a crafty shop owner from
> >tampering with his machine to make it sell Sony DVDs as if they were
WB,
> >and send the Sony profits to WB.
>
> You could have a third party making the machines, licensing them,
> inspecting the seals and restocking them.
And if you were a multi-million dollar studio owner, would you trust a
third party company, which also works for your competitors, with about
half of your revenue if you didn't have to? You get into the same problem
with trusting the individual store owners.
> > You need truck drivers to deliver discs
>
> Same company that leases the machines, would stock them and check the
> vending meters- they woudn't collect the money from vending, but they
> would get a cut back from the royalties.
Which makes it even more dangerous to give them reign over how the
machine's work.
> >and then you need to retrain the new techs on the equipment, you need
to have someone to add
> >new programming every week.
>
> No new programming unless there is a hardware change. Build them so
> the system won't even allow it. We're not talking about a PC here,
> we're talking about a dedicated machine. It doesn't have to do
> Windows or run any known programs. Heck, if they want to, it doesn't
> have to follow standard assembly code.
I was talking about the programs, AKA, the programs being burned on
DVD. And besides, even in that scenerio, you still have the possibility of
someone doing a home hardware upgrade to modify the machine. It's done.
I've seen a few modified arcade machines out there, and everything from
consules to DVD players have upgrades to defeat company copyright
protection systems.
> >And then you need plain clothes agents to
> >check out the local retailers just to make sure you're not being
cheated.
> >And you need defeatable undefeatable anti-copy technology, since you're
> >making a copy you don't want copied.
>
> That would be impossible, and illegal. People have the right to
> backups.
They have the right to make backups, they don't have a right to be
supplied with the means. A SNES cart back up system is illegal. But it's
still legal to make a backup of the cart. The PSX has special cds that are
modified, and without a hardware modification the machine won't play a
non-modified cd game. It's legal though.
> > I think in the end, the discount wouldn't be so much compared to the
added cost that would result from
> >trying to make sure your company got its full share.
>
> The discount of virtual zero inventory? That is huge. Once the
> machines had been out for a few years your local convenience store
> could afford to run one.
When I worked at a convience store, I don't remember there being much
cost involved in the video tapes. They were sent by a special distributer,
and they didn't take up much space on the floor. We rarely ever had back
stock, and if we put everything in backstock it wasn't much space compared
to our in store wharehouse space.
> >And customers would be cheated out of packaging. I don't know about
everyone, but I have all
> >but one of my original movie boxes.
>
> Professional printing machines are available, and in volume would be
> cheap. You could do the packaging on the fly as well (its all just
> paper inserts anyhow).
Now you're just jacking up the price more and more. If truley
proffesional printing machines were that easy to come by, I'd have myself
one and would be into self-publishing. Plus now you have even more stock
to take care of. Paper, ink, ect.
> > due mostly used movie buys, and all of my DVD cases
> >are in mint conditions with all the inserts, except for the win a free
> >film library cards. They're like that for a reason. I like the damn
boxes.
> >I like looking at the artwork, and reading the back covers, ect. If
they
> >came with free theater posters for five dollars more, I'd still buy 'em
> >and be even more happy.
>
> See, add on sales :-) With on the fly printing, you could probably
> choose from various movie posters, and get them in a variety of sizes.
Or I can date a girl working at the movie theater and get the newer
ones for free. I used to know, not date, a girl working there. She got me
all sorts of posters and pins free.
> It will all happen anyways, through cable companies first, then
> online on demand retailing from the entertainment companies
> themselves, then in store on demand sales. If nothing else big
> companies will open a few test stores and run a pilot program.
I don't think that cable will hit it off that well. People will still
want physical copies that don't have to pay per viewing.
> It would work far better if the companies planned for it now, and
> began working on standards and how to operate the vending, leasing,
> licensing aspects. The technology is secondary- it can be made to
> fit the bill.
They probably already are working on the ways it could work, along
with several other possibilities. At least the bigger companies. None of
these big guys are going to allow a loss in sales because their technology
was out of date.
> > I used to complain about this all the time at an old job. We had
lots
> >of storage space. We had space in the store. Lot's of it. Freezer
space,
> >shelfs, drive through window areas, ect. Meanwhile we get our normal
> >shipment every two weeks (Some perishables like bread came seperate
> >locally like every two days). Every two weeks they would under order
stuff
> >like cups, and cup covers, and napkins, and straws. And then they'd
have
> >to pay another store for their inventory, and owe a favor, and get in
> >trouble.
>
> Sounds like mgmt needed some training, or some better tracking
> methods. Its not that hard to do, once you know what you are doing.
Well, they had a computer use tracking that figured it out for them.
Possibly they were just forgetting the fact that they had a lot of
shrinkage with certain items. People commonly grab an extra straw, and
drink cups were used by the employees without record.
> >Why the hell didn't they just over order instead?
>
> Because it ties up a lot of money, and lowers your GMROI (gross margin
> return on investment). High turn items can be overstocked more than
> low turn items, as can items where the vendor gives you net terms that
> are equal or greater than the time it takes to sell (a turn) an item.
They were dirt cheap, so it didn't tie up much money. And in fact they
were even produced by a child of the corporation, so they were getting
them even cheaper in reality. But these things were essential in the
course of running our store. Especially considering that if you don't have
cups, you can't sell soda, which is a huge profit maker consider cost
versus sale price.
>
> > I mean, if we
> >get stuck with the stuff, it's still going to be good two weeks from
now.
> >Paper doesn't go bad. And we had the storage space to accomadate quite
a
> >bit more than we could use in two weeks.
>
> Out of stock=lost sales. Overstock=Sunk cost. That's why
> inventory on demand would work so well. Some manufacturers are
> trying to work out on demand processing for real world items -like
> bolts - as well. It's coming down the pipes, just a matter of when.
It wasn't that much of a sunk cost. In fact by the figures, even if we
were a private store and not a corporate store, we would've been paying
next to nothing for the stuff. Meanwhile every time we run out we end up
losing sales. And if we have to buy from a private store, they'd over
charge us too. It'd be better to have an extra week of emergency inventory
always in stock, which would've set the store back less than $100, then to
try to cut it as close as possible.
> Ever notice how some of the sale items (at a well run store) are at
> the back? You can put the machine at the back of the store- you
> could even have some advertising running on the machine. With less
> inventory space needed, you can create all sorts of visual displays.
Yeah, but then you have to have at least two people to run the store,
which is inefficient. Someone needs to stand by the door, otherwise things
disappear.
> > Competitors will never be able to beat out Amazon prices. It sells
in
> >large volumes, meaning it can get the merchandise at a much lower
price.
>
> Done properly, Blade's store could sell DVD's cheaper than Amazon.com
> can with it's current methodology. Go to a used bookstore and
> notice how much cheaper their books are than Amazon.com's, and that's
> WITH stock and overstock risks.
That's because the books are used and sold bought at a reduced price.
Buying new books, you'll probably get a bit better of a deal than with
amazon, unless you're getting stuff that's been reduced to free up shelf
space. (Primary Colors bought for a dollar fifty :)
> >And it doesn't have overhead from a store house. It has only the
> >wharehouse end of a store.
>
> It is still money invested that has to generate a profit.
But without a front end, there are less variable and fixed costs to
cover.
> >> But this way the local store could compete price wise *and* give
> >> instant product gratification. Amazon.com would go under and total
> >> DVD sales would skyrocket.
>
> > I doubt it. For one thing, if a company like Sony could offer their
> >DVDs at a cheaper price, but they already know you're willing to buy it
> >for twenty dollars, they aren't going to lower that price.
>
> They don't get twenty dollars. They *might* get 8 or nine. Figure a
> 100% markup in general on any merchandise, plus all the shipping
> handling and overhead fees.
And who is it who's going to cut their prices simply because they can?
Buisness will never cut prices unless they can make more money by doing
it. Has gas gone down evertime the wholesale price of gas has dropped?
> >Sure their competitors could. But the movie industry is a tight
competitive monopoly,
>
> Not very competitive at all. Look at the lack of variation in movie
> ticket prices.
Competetive monopoly - A market in which each competitor has a
similair, yet different, product to sell. The market is legal and makes up
the majority of US private buisnesses.
> > And Taiwan is a horrible place for an artist to look for
employment.
>
> Even with the same laws as here, it would still be miserable for
> artists. New York and LA aren't better for musicians than some
> other city because of their laws, but because of their venues.
As far as performance art goes. But if you were a novelist, you could
pretty much work anywhere. Most of your buisness engagements are going to
be handled by mail, phone, and your agent anyways. And all of your
promotional stuff is going to be done on national tours. Tiawan would be a
bad place to do that though, since as soon as you tried to publish
something, it could be stolen. And for that reason, an entertainment
company won't set up shop there.
> Wasted investment costs :-( WIth on-demans sales, that problem
> would vanish.
It isn't wasted because they get a cheaper production rate for making
large runs, which offsets the storage cost.
> >And a lot of books are pulled off the shelf not because the author or
the publisher
> >wanted them off, but because the stores wanted the space for something
> >else.
>
> Shelf space at most bookstores is very limited. Having to have
> umpteen copies of the latest best seller doesn't help either. Look
> at most sci-fi/fantasy sections right now, and notice how many books
> have been displaced to make room for gobs of Tolkien books. It's
> sad, and it needn't happen.
And AD&D novels. They're trash, I figure. But they have even more room
than Tolkien at the bookstore. And entire shelf just full of them.
> > The work goes into the semi-public domain thing. Now some publisher
picks it up,
> >hands it over to a hack, and he mangles it,
>
> I didn't say they had any rights to edit or redo or create any
> derivative works- just the right to put it back in publication, so
> long as they pay the author the assigned percentage.
Yeah, but those types of laws get manipulated very quickly.
> > Like how that stupid judge let some hack get away with 'The wind be
gone' by
> >misinterpreting the fair use under parodies exception.
>
> I don't know of that specific incident, but in general Parodies are
> fair game- if a viewer confuses Hardware Wars with Star Wars, then so
> be it.
The problem is, the wind be gone isn't a parody. Under that ruling,
the Anne Rice fanfics could be considered parodies of her work. It was
just a stupid decision. And the book was horribly written with a tired
premise that's been talked about since 1960, and it was a piece of work
the American public could've done without.
Dalai Lama
>> It will all happen anyways, through cable companies first, then
>> online on demand retailing from the entertainment companies
>> themselves, then in store on demand sales. If nothing else big
>> companies will open a few test stores and run a pilot program.
> I don't think that cable will hit it off that well. People will still
>want physical copies that don't have to pay per viewing.
Agreed. I think the cable/ISP on demand movies will spark consumer
desire for on demand physical DVD's.
>> Sounds like mgmt needed some training, or some better tracking
>> methods. Its not that hard to do, once you know what you are doing.
> Well, they had a computer use tracking that figured it out for them.
>Possibly they were just forgetting the fact that they had a lot of
>shrinkage with certain items. People commonly grab an extra straw, and
>drink cups were used by the employees without record.
<snip>
> They were dirt cheap, so it didn't tie up much money. And in fact they
>were even produced by a child of the corporation, so they were getting
>them even cheaper in reality. But these things were essential in the
>course of running our store. Especially considering that if you don't have
>cups, you can't sell soda, which is a huge profit maker consider cost
>versus sale price.
I was thinking retail, which would be different from restaraunt type
usage. Running out of essential like cups is a definite no-no.
> Yeah, but then you have to have at least two people to run the store,
>which is inefficient. Someone needs to stand by the door, otherwise things
>disappear.
Why not just a mean looking holgram by the door?
>> They don't get twenty dollars. They *might* get 8 or nine. Figure a
>> 100% markup in general on any merchandise, plus all the shipping
>> handling and overhead fees.
> And who is it who's going to cut their prices simply because they can?
When there's competition they'll cut it. If Blockbuster and Hollywood
won't- then Wal Mart will, and when Wal Mart can offer every single
DVD that Suncoast can offer, consumers will flock to Wal Mart.
Blockbuster, Hollywood and Suncoast will then either drop their prices
or go out of business.
>Buisness will never cut prices unless they can make more money by doing
>it. Has gas gone down evertime the wholesale price of gas has dropped?
When it hasn't been taxed or regulated with funky laws that require
forty three kinds of gas for 43 regions, yes it has. Yes, there is a
delay in the price drop- just as there is they jack the price up
instantly when the price of a barrel goes up. They do this to inflate
their margins. Some parts of gas prices (refining, shipping etc)
don't go down when the price of a barrel goes down.
>> >Sure their competitors could. But the movie industry is a tight
>competitive monopoly,
>>
>> Not very competitive at all. Look at the lack of variation in movie
>> ticket prices.
> Competetive monopoly -
Is that like Military Intelligence, or Peaceful War?
>A market in which each competitor has a
>similair, yet different, product to sell.
That's just proprietary product. I don't think filmmaking is much
of a monopoly, but film distribution definitely isn't a free and open
system.
>> Wasted investment costs :-( WIth on-demans sales, that problem
>> would vanish.
> It isn't wasted because they get a cheaper production rate for making
>large runs, which offsets the storage cost.
Compare the costs of sending a letter versus the cost of sending an
email. Storage costs on email exist, but they are minimal. It
won't happen in the next 5 years, but I'd think within 20 years that
the concept of owning a physical disc/device for each piece of music
or film will be as obsolete as having to keep and insert a floppy disc
for each program on your computer. Some small portable storage
medium (likely will look like a credit card with fixed optical 3d
discs that don't need to rotate) will be designed and implemented.
Someone buying a CD would just insert their card, pay and get the new
CD data transfered to their card.
>> > The work goes into the semi-public domain thing. Now some publisher
>picks it up,
>> >hands it over to a hack, and he mangles it,
>> I didn't say they had any rights to edit or redo or create any
>> derivative works- just the right to put it back in publication, so
>> long as they pay the author the assigned percentage.
> Yeah, but those types of laws get manipulated very quickly.
Copyright and Patent laws are one of the few things where Congress can
say what they mean and have the courts follow it. There is no
constitutional right to copyright or patents other than what Congress
decides to dish out. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear on
rulings so far- considering how vague congress has been in writing the
laws. The problem with most laws is that they are written by
lawyers.
> The problem is, the wind be gone isn't a parody.
As I said, I'm not familiar with that work.
>Under that ruling, the Anne Rice fanfics could be considered parodies of her work.
Isn't Dracula the most filmed subject of all time? I know what you
meant though.
> It was just a stupid decision. And the book was horribly written with a tired
>premise that's been talked about since 1960,
He he, the quality of a piece of art does not affect its copyright
status, though in truth, it should. Copyrights were intended to
protect works which benefit the public, not harm them.
>and it was a piece of work
>the American public could've done without.
Such work abound, and in fact comprise the majority of stuff out
there. Its amazing that film and music companies never make the
connection between shoddy product and low sales. They always invent
some other reason for their failure.
Still, it will be intersting to see how this plays out over the next
decade. If the entertainment industry wises up, I think we'll see
the costs of distribution come down, and make it possible for an
explosion of new film makers and an overall boost in the quality of
film and music. The optimist in me hopes so, at any rate :-)
--