[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DVD vs. Video.
- To: "'Rick Anderson'" <email@example.com>
- Subject: DVD vs. Video.
- From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:44:36 EDT
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Our experience at UNCC is that in replacing video in the library's collections the DVD version is much less expensive than VHS versions have been and are now. We've replaced a lot of VHS with DVD over the last two years.And prefer it now to VHS replacements. Overall, they have been much less expensive than the prices we pay/ and see from our vendors for VHS titles. (There are individual exceptions, but thats mostly mass market titles I believe). We buy a lot of video titles because of comparative film studies programs in many departments, from Foreign Languages to Religious Studies. And we can't use Amazon for most of them, though we do check there to see if they are available. I suspect that general release movies go to an inexpensive VHS pricing model while the more specialized, such as are in Academic collections and of interest to small groups, i.e specialized titles,continue with high VHS prices. The smaller market making the difference? However DVD's, again just a guess--are so inexpensive to reproduce and ship that there hasn't been that much incentive to diffentiate high volume vs. low volume titles in terms of pricing. And maybe the industry is seeing an expansion in sales of backlist titles in DVD format?? I hope somone in he movie or video industry can explain these different types of pricing, I'd lke to know the why! It's obvious music is in a recession. The why I suspect is much more than the open and shut denunciation and blame the industry places on file swapping. I'd like to see some customer research--asking why they are buying less. I believe there are other reasons contributing to their slump. But bashing their customers is an easy case to make and from their perspective improves their chances of ever more draconian law making. The copyright empire seems to have decided that blaming the customer is a winning approach to regulatory action. We are seeing it from spokespersons in trade organizations from books to video to music. We aren't hearing it much from academic and scholarly publishers-who's primary experience is academic markets and its users. In fact, some of them I strongly suspect are embarassed by attacks on libraries, librarians and individuals and may be as concerned as many librarians are about preserving basic use rights in digital mediums.However in solidarity with their industries they generally stay silent on some of these issues. (and yes, I personally have experience with sholarly publlishers privately disagreeing with IP industry initiatives while publicly remaining silent). There is a long history in the US of failing industries and markets demanding protective laws for their production and distribution models. RE :legally mandated monopolies,businesses love them-it protects them even when they should be changing how they do business, protects them from their own mistakes, though ultimately may doom their existence. To the credit of the scholarly publishing community many of them are trying to re-invent themselves and their sales, production and marketing models. I think the music industry is trying to protect existing sales and marketing patterns rather than working hard at creating alternative models. There is some indication that kids in the lower grades are less tolerant of unpaid use.( a report in the news yesterday).Having lived with a 20 something (our son) I can say without fear of Rick proving me wrong ;) not everyone with a highspeed modem and a pc is interested in file swapping. Also, re IP rights, we've had a number of video producers refuse to sell to us in any format-for lots of different reasons, i.e. their primary product is motivational sales to individuals, or their primary product is instructional sales to individual teachers, etc. so they won't sell to libraries. Short sighted IMO. Chuck