Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by GreatGreg

Yes, you can download it and burn it on a BD, but then you have to pay Sony a royalty for your purchase of blank BDs (I believe this is true anyway).

Well, Microsoft gets royalties from the VC-1 codec. The bottom line, there's going to be royalties on nearly everything you buy.

[Steel Panther]

Originally Posted by Banjo

Well, Microsoft gets royalties from the VC-1 codec. The bottom line, there's going to be royalties on nearly everything you buy.

There's also a HUGE tax on *ALL* Blank media sold in Canada because of our laid back copyright laws. If they change, they probably won't remove the tax, but just sleep knowing that you can get blank BD-R (25GB) in the states for 50 cents a disc, and they're around $5 here (This, of course is for Non LTH Discs)

[Neild]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

get over it, either point out the terrible spelling mistakes when something bugs you or shut up about them.

For the third time I'm going to politely say that your insults and personal attacks detract from the fragments of relevant info buried in the rest of what you write.

Your English comprehension is low, so we've given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you are new to the language. I'll further give you the benefit of the doubt that your rude comments are a byproduct of not properly understanding English words and their meanings.

So assuming that underneath it all, you are actually a normal person who just doesn't type like one, I'll try to help you better understand the subject.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I never sent a CD by mail, but a few years back I did send a DVD full of pics to a friend in Calgary.

Good blank audio CD's cost more than DVD's, especially in singles.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

8$ for mail? don't know if things have changed

Things have changed. Rates for mailing media and bubble packs have gone up significantly.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

with bubble wrap for 7$ so that is easily under 1$ for the plain cardboard ones, which is what I would use to send a CD/DVD to a friend

From your comments, I guess we could have assumed you'd send a gift by C.O.D. Regardless, someone has to pay the price of physical shipping, whether it's you or your friend.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

11$ labour? I don't get where there is labour in this.

Again, I erred in assuming you were of working age, and I applied a fair and minimal wage to the time it takes to create, package, and post the CD. Once you enter the work world, you'll understand why the time taken to do things does have a financial value.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

who knows if things have changed since then

People that take the time to be informed, that's who. Prices are publicly available, however it takes some experience to know how the prices will get applied. I've mailed a few dozen movies to Canada and USA, so I know the costs.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Not even close. Now I don't have a server at home to serve up that 1GB/5GB data, it would be stupid for me to have it for that one time deal, but without my internet connection how would I e-mail the file?

There's many ways to transmit a file. You could use your charm on another site to learn how, it's actually incredibly easy.

So then you and your hypothetical friend can swap the file, consuming less than a percent of your monthly cap, and around 3 cents cent of electricity (both ends).

I'm not interested in being trolled so if you feel my $20 estimate should have been $19.24 or $18.79 you're entitled to seek out that extreme level of precision. But realize that the key point remains: physical media creation and transportation are measured in dollars/unit, and digital delivery is measured in pennies/unit.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

It is not hard to see that at the top of the chart (most profitable) are different physical media (more of the 10$ you pay of a CD goes in his pocket) and the bottom is digital (less of it stays in his pocket)

You're still misunderstanding the own chart, perhaps because it's in English.

Yes, a garage band home-burnt CD sold at a merch table returns almost all the price to the artist. But selling discs out of your trunk, making 4 sales a weekend is about all they can expect.

However an itunes download can sell 4 times a day. Or 4 times a minute. Or 4 times a second. All while the artist is sleeping.

The margin per unit may be lower, but the volumes can be exponentially higher.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Since if you did work in IT you would realize it is not cheap at all, server hosting goes from several hundred to over 1k$ a month depending on power, connection and services and if you worked in trucking you would realize that they ship many stuff at the same time and try to have trucks as full as possible and not just a few CDs in it.

Akamai servers can deliver hundreds if not thousands of content pieces every minute. A truck would take over a week to do the same, and would cost thousands of dollars for fuel plus a similar amount for labour plus additional logistics overhead.

[tilallr1]

Physical Media will eventually end. It's not a question of if but when. But from everything I am seeing today, true HD video/audio streaming with near to instant delivery doesn't exist yet. Nor will it for a very, very long time (my guess is 20 years), maybe longer if the economy goes south (which it will).

For video digital downloading to be successful, it must be accepted and used by the majority of mainstream movie watchers. For this to happen of course internet infrastructure needs to be dramatically improved and reach every home, speeds/bandwidth need to be drastically increased, and finally costs need to go way, way down. Do you see any of these things happening anytime soon? If anything, no one is doing anything really to improve overall internet infrastructures. Ultimately its too expensive and not worth it to service providers. Bandwidth caps are getting smaller, speeds are getting throttled and costs for end users are only going up, up, up!!!

Personally I don't think physical media has anything to be scared of anytime soon. Blu-ray is here to stay for the next 30 years, in my humble opinion.

[Steel Panther]

Originally Posted by tilallr1

Physical Media will eventually end. It's not a question of if but when. But from everything I am seeing today, true HD video/audio streaming with near to instant delivery doesn't exist yet. Nor will it for a very, very long time (my guess is 20 years), maybe longer if the economy goes south (which it will).

For video digital downloading to be successful, it must be accepted and used by the majority of mainstream movie watchers. For this to happen of course internet infrastructure needs to be dramatically improved and reach every home, speeds/bandwidth need to be drastically increased, and finally costs need to go way, way down. Do you see any of these things happening anytime soon? If anything, no one is doing anything really to improve overall internet infrastructures. Ultimately its too expensive and not worth it to service providers. Bandwidth caps are getting smaller, speeds are getting throttled and costs for end users are only going up, up, up!!!

Personally I don't think physical media has anything to be scared of anytime soon. Blu-ray is here to stay for at least 30 years at least, in my humble opinion.

Less than 10 before Super Duper HD Comes out with like 4x the resolution it is now =P

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by Steel Panther

Less than 10 before Super Duper HD Comes out with like 4x the resolution it is now =P

As has been discussed in other threads, the super duper HD file format can fit on blu-ray discs (since they have been shown to carry 400GB capacities possibly more 500GB https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1616). So I still stand by the fact that blu-rays will be the last physical media, and won't be eclipsed for 30 years. Especially since the 500GB disc is compatible with current Blu-ray drives found in all computers, players, and recorders. That is a huge selling factor.

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by Steel Panther

There's also a HUGE tax on *ALL* Blank media sold in Canada because of our laid back copyright laws. If they change, they probably won't remove the tax, but just sleep knowing that you can get blank BD-R (25GB) in the states for 50 cents a disc, and they're around $5 here (This, of course is for Non LTH Discs)

Yes, it's called a levy. From what I know, there is no levy imposed on blank DVDs in Canada. Both audio cassette tapes and blank CDs are around 24 to 29 cents each. Blank CDs are more expensive than blank DVDs these days.

I remember they proposed that they add a levy to the blank DVDs which would have been around $2.27 each... EACH! That was almost a decade ago though. They wanted to raise all of the levy fees on all media formats. For instance, CD would had went up to 59 cents per disc. Good thing they were quick to shoot them down. They also wanted to charge something like 2 cents per megabyte on iPod and similar devices.

The recording industry association is greedy as hell.

[Johnny Vinyl]

It's a beautiful day and I'm feeling great, but if the personal attacks and insults (you know who you are) don't stop, I'll likely change my mood very rapidly.

Let's keep it civil, people!

[Steel Panther]

Originally Posted by John72953

It's a beautiful day and I'm feeling great, but if the personal attacks and insults (you know who you are) don't stop, I'll likely change my mood very rapidly.

Let's keep it civil, people!

we should force group hugs

[kryptonite1970]

My question is...Why is this thread still in the deals section?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by GreatGreg

My original post referred to the INDIANA JONES series as an example. The point I was making was that any release of any film on physical media requires a lot more work than just creating the source materials themselves.

Agree, but as I pointed out all of that is true for digital as well.

We have always been talking about profits for the studios, not the artists themselves. The artists themselves (except for a select few like George) have little to no say about the distribution of the media and gain little to none going from physical to digital media.

you don’t get the point, the guy makes his own music, the same way a studio makes a film. He is the owner of the content. You should read the article that I also linked to

It's the studios that have the most to gain. They have a whole distribution chain that is costly and antiquated.

it might be antiquated, but the issue is that it is not costly. Let me ask you a simple question, how much does it cost a studio to get a BD to Best Buy (or future shop or amazon….)?

Regarding the IT costs and maintenance costs for a digital library, it is not something new to the studios either. Many films are already in digital format and are kept on servers already. One IT person or a team of them can maintain many many films on servers. This is much more equitable for the studio than to rely on a distribution system involving hundreds of employees.

not true, movies used to be stored as film and many still are but the rest are stored as digital tapes for archiving. Don’t forget we are not talking about a crappy way overly compressed Netflix file that is 2-3 GB/movie or a too compressed BD file at 35-50GB but a file that could easily be over a TB depending on the film and resolution (for example 2K 24 bits/pixel* [/b]2048[/b]*1040 {this would depend on AR but going with 1.87} * 24 frames/second gives 552.08 GB/h so a 90 minute movie will fit on one TB but a 110 minute movie will not). And that is for a 2K transfer of a 1.87 movie, go with 4K (most popular since you want to archive at a higher resolution) and it is 4x as much, 6k and it is 9x, 8k and it is 16x as much. Also why would anyone in his right mind archive anything on a HDD, they brake so easily, imagine you just made an 8k scan of LOA which is a 3.5h movie, you have more than 30 1TB HDDs, you put them away, some years pass and you want to re-release, go get the HDDs and one (or more) don’t work.


Plus even if it was true that a studio has a server for archiving films

1) it is not the studio that matters, you get your flm from Netflix or Vudu or Apple….. so who cares what infrastructure the studio has

2) there is a big difference between a machine that takes one film at a time and moves it somewhere else (right, takes the film from the archive and sends it to the CGI department to re-do some dated effects, send it to the compressionist to make a BD or for DL or DVD…) compared to a machine that lets the millions of people go on it and each one of them streaming a different film.

With digital download, the studios offset the costs of distribution to the consumer. You now pay for your own internet and your own bandwidth and your own hard drive space to store the film.

you are assuming that it is large when it is not because you don’t get how it works. Let me try again http://www.cinram.com/overview/

so what happens is they will get from Warner music group what is needed for some CDs, they will get from Universal, MGM, LG and fox what is needed for some BDs and DVDs, from EA and Ubisoft some PS3 games, 360 games, PC games and Wii. They will reproduce the films package them and do everything. Then one day they will also get from each of those places the orders (i.e. from WMG what did Amazon or Best buy want this week in music, from MGM in movies…) they make a big package and a truck full of CDs, BDs, DVDs, games leaves and goes to Amazons distribution centre (now that truck could have more than one pallet and more than one destination). And the copies that did not go out go into their storage. All this for a very low low price because the replication business is cut throat.

Little Johnny or Suzie watching TOY STORY 3 for the thirteenth time means more recurring revenue for Disney. They get paid every time someone watches the movie, which can add up to a heckuva lot more than selling you the film on physical media in one shot.

no, because the two are not equivalent even if we assume the studio makes the same margins on rental (which it does not). If Joe paid 40$ to buy TS3 on BD http://www.amazon.ca/Toy-Story-3D-Bi...8458733&sr=1-6, 13 times is no where near enough. Since I can rent a BD at Zip kiosks for 2$ a pop and 26$<<40$ and granted kids can watch the same thing 5 times in a row (literally) if you let them, you are still only looking at a very small number of films. The vast majority will get one two, maybe three viewings by an individual. Do you think a studio will make a decision based on the 20 blockbuster movies people will see 20+ times instead of the 2000 movies people wont? Also isn’t this a rental vs buy argument? I can do both with BD and I can do both via DL.

Can I ask you a question? If studios would rather have us rent shy did they go to Redbox and Netflix and the rest and tell them “ hey if you guys want special pricing on movies, you would need to wait a month” obviously so that impatient people will decide buy it instead.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Neild

Good blank audio CD's cost more than DVD's

yes because of the Levy, that is why I included a link to CDs as well, they where 30 cents instead of 20 cents for the DVDs. But knowing that, since DVDs can hold more content, why would I use a CD over a DVD?

hings have changed. Rates for mailing media and bubble packs have gone up significantly.

1) prove it, I pointed out to Canada post’s website where a CD or DVD can be considered letter mail. And a letter costs 60 cents
2) I pointed out that if it was anywhere near 8$ zip.ca would have benn out of business a long time ago or they would have raised their price by a lot.
3) I did not think of it last time but if it is 8$ how can I go to Amazon.ca, futureshop, Bestbuy…. And get free shipping on a small order like 20$.

People that take the time to be informed, that's who. Prices are publicly available, however it takes some experience to know how the prices will get applied. I've mailed a few dozen movies to Canada and USA, so I know the costs.

USA is different for any international location it cannot be included in letter mail because it needs to go through customs. http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/errors/serverbusy.html

Originally Posted by Canada post

The following items may not be sent as Letter-post (U.S.A. and International):
· film, audio or video recording (diskettes, CD, DVD)

also if you are shipping a large number in a box in Canada, it will be a parcel as well. You asked me for a single CD in Canada and that is letter mail and last time I sent something it was a normal stamp. Rven if that changed it would still be letter mail but it would depend on wait and might be a 1-2$ at worst

Again, I erred in assuming you were of working age, and I applied a fair and minimal wage to the time it takes to create, package, and post the CD. Once you enter the work world, you'll understand why the time taken to do things does have a financial value.

value yes, cost no, and this is a question of cost. Even at that it is menial labour so value should be under 5 minutes (put disk in envelope, seal it, write address and put stamp on it) of minimum wage. On the other hand why did you not include assumed labour for the e-mail all that wasted time looking at the progress bar while the 1GB+ email gets loaded?

You're still misunderstanding the own chart, perhaps because it's in English.

Yes, a garage band home-burnt CD sold at a merch table returns almost all the price to the artist. But selling discs out of your trunk, making 4 sales a weekend is about all they can expect.

However an itunes download can sell 4 times a day. Or 4 times a minute. Or 4 times a second. All while the artist is sleeping.

The margin per unit may be lower, but the volumes can be exponentially higher.

no, you are missing the point. Forget about the guy selling disks out of his truck. The second one is CD using Cdbaby.com, if he does that he makes 7.50 for a 10$ CD and it is not a “sold out of the back of his car” scenario. On the other hand if he uses CDbaby to release an Mp3 online (not on itunes but just on their site) he makes 7.40 (i.e. a song at 1$ brings in .74). Now I know there is not a big difference between 7.50 and 7.40 but I never implied there was, you have been saying there is one but on the opposite side. And if he uses Cdbaby to make a song available on itunes he makes 5.70$ (i.e. a song sold at 1$ brings in .57)

On the other hand your original assertion was “CD has more revenue but digital is more profitable” that is one of the reasons that profits got into equation. Now it is who cares if for each 10$ there is more profit in CD he will sell more copies on itunes, that might be true for this guy but in general it is not true since CD has more revenue.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steel Panther

There's also a HUGE tax on *ALL* Blank media sold in Canada because of our laid back copyright laws. If they change, they probably won't remove the tax, but just sleep knowing that you can get blank BD-R (25GB) in the states for 50 cents a disc, and they're around $5 here (This, of course is for Non LTH Discs)

not true, the blank media levy is only on CD (r, re), it was also on audio tapes and the government is thinking of adding it to MP3 players. It is only collected on "music media" and the levy is passed on to the music industry for loss of income due to us being legally allowed to record something off the radio. That is why in the previous post where I used an example of CDs they where 30 cents on the spindle of 100 where in the US you can find them for just under 20 cents each while the DVD-r examples I included where 20 cents just like you would find in the US.

As for BD-r I never bought any, but as far as I know there is no levy (namely because BDs are for video and not music), But even if it is added I doubt it would be 4.50$ as you imply

[Steedeel]

Digital sell through of movies in my opinion has been one massive flop. Bluray is safe. Also, if in the future low quality files are the norm, hd addicts will look to torrents and such like in my opinion.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Neild

What niche collectors want bears no relevance on what the mass market will supply. Corporations won't voluntarily accept radically smaller profits because you enjoy touching and holding a movie case.

You seem to be under the impression that there are a few big corporations that control the market. This isn't the case. In fact, the trend is, and will be for quite a long time, to have smaller distributors make bigger and more efficient moves on the OD market.

Pro-B

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Neild

What niche collectors want bears no relevance on what the mass market will supply.

This is also incorrect.

The OD market, and growth in general, is driven by approximately 10% of serious collectors. This isn't an opinion or speculation, it is a fact, also confirmed by Universal's Kornblau.

Additionally, optical media options will be available for a very, very long time. And only bloggers who have never been part of the distribution system and thus do not understand how the production cycle functions would speculate otherwise:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...y-after-never/

Pro-B

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Atari Charles

The Future: Not the future as envisioned by Blade Runner and Sigue Sigue Sputnik, but the future of physical media. Blu-ray Video and Audio is the future. Mp3s may be easily portable but Blu-ray Audio will be so far superior to mp3s, that this may very well be the next audio format.

Agreed. I will also add this: If there is one mistake the BDA did, which they should have corrected as soon as Blu-ray won the war, it is the fact that they did not offer a standardized Blu-ray audio format and get all of the music companies on board to revitalize the market.

As it is, MP3 files are of horrible, horrible quality, and I cannot see why anyone who cares about the listening experience would want to pay for them. CDs are the better option. IF there was a standardized mass Blu-ray audio market, then the gap in quality would have been even greater.

Pro-B

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Digital sell through of movies in my opinion has been one massive flop. Bluray is safe. Also, if in the future low quality files are the norm, hd addicts will look to torrents and such like in my opinion.

They won't and can't be the norm - because even amongst the streaming proponents there are very few who have stated that they will be willing to pay for them. In other words, if the collectors won't pay for them, there won't be a viable market for them, which is what the majors want so that they could supposedly generate bigger revenue.

Physical media and Blu-ray are here to stay, though the market will be a lot more flexible in the future.

Pro-B

[blu2]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Agreed. I will also add this: If there is one mistake the BDA did, which they should have corrected as soon as Blu-ray won the war, it is the fact that they did not offer a standardized Blu-ray audio format and get all of the music companies on board to revitalize the market.

Yes, if only that were so. The high def music market is still a schizophrenic and market-dependent mix/mess of SACD, DVD-A, Downloads, and the occasional Blu Ray (often thrown in as part of a deluxe mega $$$ box set). Even major non-classical audiophile labels have yet to test the waters with Blu Ray.

[Neild]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yes because of the Levy, that is why I included a link to CDs as well, they where 30 cents instead of 20 cents for the DVDs. But knowing that, since DVDs can hold more content, why would I use a CD over a DVD?

Because in the example given, you're sending an archival redbook audio CD that your "friend" can listen to. You cannot buy a single audio grade CD for 30 cents, in fact I doubt you could find one for $1.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

1) prove it, I pointed out to Canada post’s website where a CD or DVD can be considered letter mail. And a letter costs 60 cents

Uhh, you misunderstand postage as well.

Lettermail is a category with costs that start at Permanent stamp level (which is currently 59 cents, not 60, FYI)

The cost goes up based on size, weight, shape, contents, and destination.

A properly wrapped DVD case won't fit through Canada Post's lettermail test slot, so if you can't sneak your oversized letter through, you're looking at almost $10.

Customers wouldn't take well to their purchased movies being removed from the case and sent with no protection as letter mail. That's why big companies like Amazon have business rates with different sizes and rules and bulk pricing.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I did not think of it last time but if it is 8$ how can I go to Amazon.ca, futureshop, Bestbuy…. And get free shipping on a small order like 20$.

Scientists have determined our sun doesn't have enough years left to teach you those kind of business basics.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

USA is different for any international location it cannot be included in letter mail because it needs to go through customs. http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/errors/serverbusy.html

Doesn't make sense and you've posted a nonsense link.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

You asked me for a single CD in Canada and that is letter mail and last time I sent something it was a normal stamp.

While it is theoretically possible to send a bare polycarbonate disc as letter mail, but nobody in their right mind would do that. Once you put the disc in a BD/DVD case, you break the low letter mail spec and it costs more.

Customers, some of whom complain about such things as a fingernail mark in a slipcover, would not tolerate caseless, coverless movies and discs that have been cracked in half.

But hey, have it your way. Assume you treat your friend or customer like you treat this forum. Send the worst quality 30 cent disc you can find. Assume you're unemployable and your time has no value. And that you sneak a naked disc through Canada Post using a wrapper you made from cardboard from the landfill.

You've still spent $1-2, in other words 200 times as much as a digital transfer.

If you truly believe that production, handling, warehousing, transportion and other costs of physical discs are lower than that of a digital transfer, I don't know how else to educate you.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

On the other hand your original assertion was “CD has more revenue but digital is more profitable” that is one of the reasons that profits got into equation.

I didn't say that, I actually criticized the way physical and digital albums get similar price treatment.

If a digital download of an album were 10x or 20x cheaper, it might be easier to accept the lower quality and durability, and overlook the increased profit margin.