Subject:
|
Re: Star Wars on DVD
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:02:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
655 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > >
> > > > > What burns me isn't the price of DVDs, but rather the price of CDs. If • DVDs
> > > > > are in fact cheaper to make than VHS, then CDs should certainly be cheaper
> > > > > still. Not to mention the fact that the technology is decades old and has
> > > > > still shown little sign of price reduction. ... Certainly
> > > > > all production costs were met years ago, and the compensation for such a • lofty
> > > > > artistic expression can likewise be argued to be satisfied.
> > > >
> > > > Um, the record company is in it to make a profit, and so is the merchant, • that's
> > > > why they don't pass them on to you at cost.
> > >
> > > That's not what he is stating
> >
> > But it's what I'm stating! The manufacturer is not obligated to lower prices • to
> > you after initial costs are recouped.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > The record company keeps the nice fat profits from all those CDs, and makes • much
> > > > better margin than they used to when pressing vinyl.
> > > >
> > > > -Erik (just pointing out the obvious)
> > >
> > > The Obvious is that the prices are artifically inflated. There are all • sorts
> > > of bueracratic (spelling?) reasons that are nothing more than hot air. • Without
> > > these "reasons" the record industry would be breaking the anti-trust laws in
> > > USA.
> >
> > You call it artifically inflated, they call it profit margin. If "profit" is • a
> > dirty word to you, then tough. It's still a free country.
>
> You are missing the point entirely. It is ILLEGAL for them to artifically
> inflate prices in the USA. That is what they are doing under some • gobbledegook
> reasons that are merely to prevent them from being prosicuted. Also most
> artist make squat off of album sales. They make most of their money be
> touring. That is why Napster and the like will kill the record industy but • not
> put artists out of buisness. A few artits/groups are going so far a to only
> release their next album in MP3 format FREE over the net.
??? They can charge whatever they want as long as the entire industry doesn't
collude to control those prices. Supply and demand. On CDs, the price was
originally high because there were so few facilities that could actually make
them. Once the production bottleneck was fixed, the recording companies simply
decided that since everyone was already willing to pay that amount, they'd just
leave prices there and pocket the extra (and eventually had to pay more to the
artists). I cut way back on CDs because I feel they are overpriced.
Napster will soon be put out of business, IMHO. It is nothing more than a
framework for music pirates. I'm not going to steal a Porsche because it costs
too much, and I'm not going to steal The Backstreet Boys music because their CD
costs too much (not that I'd be caught dead with their stuff one way or the
other).
> >
> >
> > > FYI actual cost for a CD is about $0.15. Most of that if in the metal
> > > componet. If anyone doesn't think the Lego Company could sell us peices at
> > > $0.02 and still be making a huge profit they are delusional.
> > > -Lord Insanity (who absolutely refueses to pay more than $10 a CD, $20 a • DVD,
> > > or $0.10 a Lego piece)
> >
> > I'm glad you know how to budget your money.
Admittedly it was a few years ago, but cost of getting a computer game
duplicated onto CD was about 50 cents. Packaging, shipping, recording studio,
talent, support personnel, advertising, graphics and art, maintainence of all
the proceeding, etc. add a lot more. Game prices did not come down, even
though the cost of a CD was little different from a 1.44 floppy, and you had a
lot more floppies. Why? Costs had gone way up, but prices hadn't reflected it
(simply there was resistance to a price over $60, no matter how much it
actually cost to make the game). CDs simply restored the balance in that
particular case.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Star Wars on DVD
|
| (...) That is what they are doing. Hence the artifical inflating prices statement. (...) simply (...) just (...) costs (...) CD (...) As i stated most artists make next to nothing off CD sales anyway. This is the reason most artists don't care, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Star Wars on DVD
|
| (...) to (...) Without (...) You are missing the point entirely. It is ILLEGAL for them to artifically inflate prices in the USA. That is what they are doing under some gobbledegook reasons that are merely to prevent them from being prosicuted. Also (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
