Warner Brothers withholds films from Blockbuster

[Damien Oujia]

Originally Posted by itirnitii

See and this is what perplexes me about hiding the cover art. WHY? Nobody has given me a solid answer, if it exists.

I fail to understand it as well. We don't take trades without the original cover art but yet for these titles we are replacing the art work. Seems contradictory to me... I fail to see the issue if it's just considered a trade. When we took movies for trade before to sell as PRP we never replaced the cover art.

[ClutztomerControl]

WRONG! CD is dying 2012.


http://www.reghardware.com/2011/11/0...y_end_of_2012/

[ClutztomerControl]

Originally Posted by Damien Oujia

You're a fool.

1) Not everybody wishes to "rent" all their media from some corporation via streaming.

2) To those that do stream would be wise to understand those are being licensed, and licenses expire. The physical media I purchase will be in my collection as long as I have it.

3) Streaming fails at offering the same quality as Blu-Ray on multiple levels. It may be wonderful to look at for Joe Six Pack but for those of us who have eyes and ears we know better.

4) People are far too materialistic for these things to EVER go away completely.

I can download Blu-Ray Qlty via pirate rings. Who said anything about paying? lol

[ukindieman]

This is my first reply on this site. I'm from the UK and Warner have been doing this kind of thing over here for years. In 2001 they introduced two tier pricing, which effectively meant supermarkets could supply warner titles (the first of which was training day) at £10 a throw, but rental stores had to pay £35 per copy. The titles were released on the same day, but Warner sent around staff to check whether stores were renting out Rental Copies and not retail copies, with the threat of court action and huge fines. The reason they said they did this was Blockbuster. Movies always came onto rental first, usually with a window between rental and retail of about three months, but Blockbuster, Choices, Apollo etc all sold ex-rental copies for about £7.95 after about four weeks of release, cutting into Warners retail trade.
Independant rental shops closed in their hundreds. Almost overnight the small shops were gone, unable to compete with the big boys or afford the high pricing (we always paid a high price but had that lucrative rental window). A few years later a lot of the big boys started falling by the wayside. Choices, Apollo, MVC all went. Only Blockbuster and a handful of independents remained, myself still included.
But then a lot of large retail stores began to close. Woolworths being the biggest name, denting the retail market even more.
Other studios followed warners example, all releasing titles simultaneously.
And then 2008 came, with Warner Bros announcing they were scrapping the two tier pricing. Movies could be brought from anywhere to rent. The cover art no longer said NOT FOR RENTAL. No other studio followed suit.
Now though, Warner have once again begun splashing over their covers NOT FOR RENTAL. Why? I don't know.
The dvd rental trade is all but dead in this country. Sky TV, Virgin TV all have the most up to date movies on their pay per view channels the same day they are released to the shops. They are more expensive than renting a dvd (example: X-Men first class sky Box office £4.50 for 24hrs / 3 brand new dvd's from my store £5 for 3 days.) but people are lazy. And we wonder why we're in recession and people have no money when so much is wasted.
Blockbuster over here sing they are doing so well, yet have just dropped their price for dvds (albiet older ones) to 99p for 1 night. They offer a click and collect service, which is handy for me as I find out what my local BB does and doesn't have in stock, and half the movies they advertise at 99p they don't stock. The shops are tired and out dated (I don't think my local BB even has a vacuum cleaner, the floor is so dirty) and always seem empty. I replied to Moms post because like her I have been in this trade since the beginning (me 1984) and am still earning a living from the store, but only just. I love films, I love working with the public and I love my business and don't want to see it go, but I know it will.
Warner not allowing stores to rent dvd's for 28 days after their retail release is the death knell for this trade. Over here Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 comes out on December 2nd. If I couldn't rent it out until roughl January 2nd there'd bee no point even buying it as everyone who wanted it would have brought it for Christmas.
My only conclusion is that studios no longer want dvd rental stores, forgetting how lucrative these stores were for them up until the last few years. They want to boost sales of dvd's, then don't penalise the rental stores. Instead release each title worldwide on the same day, that way it beats anyone uploading it onto the web prior to a country's release date. Stop all screeners so thay cant be uploaded and don't release movies in places like Russia eliminating R5 copies. The internet is killing the studios profit margin, but they don't seem to want to address it. Best example of this, the movie 11-11-11, which is released in theatres this Friday. There has been a dvd quality copy on the net for nearly a week. Studios, sort it!
Sorry for the rant, I just needed to vent.

[djblade]

Originally Posted by ClutztomerControl

WRONG! CD is dying 2012.


http://www.reghardware.com/2011/11/0...y_end_of_2012/

True but the big albums (popular/special albums) will go on . Only the small/medium fries will go on digital because whats the point of them? it saves money and environment

[djblade]

Originally Posted by ClutztomerControl

I can download Blu-Ray Qlty via pirate rings. Who said anything about paying? lol

I wonder...do you also download games?

[ClutztomerControl]

Originally Posted by djblade

I wonder...do you also download games?

Yep. I pay for them though.

[HelloItsMeMOM]

When I had my store if people wanted to steal a movie they actually had to come into the store to get it