No way could NBC imagine people ponying up $4.99 for an episode ... but I figure that they did want more for wahtever they considered their premium or hot programs and were trying to persuade Apple to support the cost increase with advertising sales of some sort ... Apple refused to go along, and without the ad revenue the cost would effectively be the $4.99.
I also think that NBC is now (whether from the get-go or a lemon fix) using the flap to publicize it's upcoming portal with News Corp which will most likely flop - because it will be stuffed to the gills with the above mentioned ads ...
The only show on NBC I watched last season was Heroes, and after the craptastic season finale I'm not even particularly looking forward to season two. If it's available via iTunes I'll give it another chance. If not *shrug* oh well.
No way could NBC imagine people ponying up $4.99 for an episode ...
I would pay $4.99 and perhaps $9.99 for new direct to iTunes FireFly episodes...but that's a different kettle of fish than what NBC is doing. And it is questionable how many folks are like me that would spring $5-10 bucks for a 40 min episode.
Not that I was as impressed with B5:The Lost Tales (direct to DVD) but it's understandable given how the cast has long scattered (or is no longer with us), the sets gone and the limited budget.
"It is clear that Apple?s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."
What???? The current pricing is too expensive for something that does not exist (not physical or material).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
The media giant(s) are speaking with a split tongue though if they claim that Apple is more interested in selling their high margin iPods and making less margin on content. They claim equally that they are up in arms as Apple does not grant them their "tenth" on the hardware.
Funny enough : Over here in Europe this is precisely what is happening. In France each iPOd sold results in a copyright levy of ?8 ($9.38) in Germany it is ?2.74. The list goes on. These levys are then collected by the agencies in charge of author rights (SACEM, GEMA, BUMA/STERMA etc.) and passed onto the IP owners. Which would be (for instance) Universal or NBC Universal
Another aspect where they speak with a split tongue is on recordable CD/DVD where once again a similar levy is charged PER CD and passed onto the IP owners via the schema above. In France it's 0.30? per CD and 1.5?) per DVD.
In Germany there is a levy as well on the burners : 6.42 ? CD and 7.89 ? for a DVD burner.
So in all: fairness IP giants you already participate greatly in the commercial success of the hardware sales ! At least have the guts to be honest and open abouuut it !
First you obvsiouly don't know how much a gaffer makes. Seasoned gaffers in Los Angeles can make 70-80K a year. That's not a lot in Los Angeles.
Second, you don't know what a gaffer does. Gaffers do not set the lights on the set. They accurately determine, based on the type of camera, the camera angle, position of the actors, materials used in the set construction, desired lighting effect, and a lot of other factors, the luminosity, angle other information about the lighting. Saying that a gaffer "Sets the lights on the set" is like saying Steve Jobs "tells people what to do". Listen to the commentary on DVDs of a show like West Wing and you'll hear the director rave about theLD (who is a gaffer) at least once.
Third, an Apple fan accusing Hollywood of having inflated salaries is like the teapot calling the kettle black. As a person who works in the technology business in California and knows many Apple employees, you should find out what Apple pays even its entry level engineers. Hint: $120,000 isn't too far off for those guys.
And all you Apple fanboys (on this site and others) who say they will "get their NBC content one way or the other (hint hint, wink wink)" should think about the NBC person who says "I will get Leopard one way or the other" too. Pirating Leopard is just as easy, and just as wrong.
I don't think we need to get too caught up in this. I don't think the original gaffer comment was from somebody well-informed or rational... Content developers and specialists (DP, lighting, editors, etc.) and Technologists (Apple engineers, GUI designers, etc, etc...) We're all in the same boat here... Apple + Creative Creation = Good (for the most part).
Let's remember it is the (cliched, but true) "suits" that have no concept of art, doing something right, creativity or hard work, that are screwing everything up.
While the plot and characters of Heroes don't exactly draw me in, I appreciate the high production value. A lot of effort from those "in the shadows" that make those "in the light" look good. They should get their deserved royalties (if that is the scheme) ... It's a pity less royalties for the hard working person on the show because of BitTorrent pirating.
And Hulu.com already has a major disadvantage out the gates at this stage - it is not ready and not available as this major NBC content fiasco is happening. Just as the new TV season is upon us, YouTube and BitTorrent rake up new highs. For shame, NBC executives, bad time to play the "fuck you Apple" card.
According to Wikipedia (which should be accurate, in this case):
"NBC Universal is a media and entertainment company formed in May 2004 by the combination of General Electric's NBC with Vivendi Universal Entertainment, part of the French Media Group, Vivendi SA. GE owns 80% of NBC Universal with the remaining 20% owned by Vivendi SA."
So they're sister companies in that Vivendi owns a significant stake in both, even if one isn't a majority stake.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That is not the way most of the world would define "sister company."
Also, AI's report refers to Vivendi as NBC's "parent company" which is flatly incorrect. GE is the parent company. Period. (Check the annual reports of GE and Vivendi).
NBC said they did not suggest that the per episode price should go up to $4.99. This is true. This is the retail price, and Apple sets the retail price.
But what they're not being honest about is that they did, as apple claims, double the wholesale price. Apple's forecast based on the new wholesale pricing was what dictated that episodes be sold at $4.99 to maintain profit levels.
NBC also said that they episodes will continue to be sold until the current contract expires in December. This they cannot possibly know, as I'm sure in Apple's contract with them Apple has no obligation to sell the episodes at all. And it was Apple's decision, not NBC's, that if the contract wasn't renewed or some other guarantee signed, they would not sell any episodes, only to have the seasons cut off in the middle. This should be Apple's right.
If NBC wants to sell the episodes until December, they have to extend the contract for those episodes until the end of the season, at the current prices. They simply have no upper hand in this matter.
Apple may not have the "right" to stop selling the shows based on the contract but it really doesn't matter. All that matters is if Apple can delay a court case long enough to run out the contract before a judge rules in favor of NBC. That should not be too hard to do, heck even a 4-8 week delay in releasing the shows would be devastating to the sales, especially given that the consumers know that they are not guaranteed that they will be able to get the whole season.
On a side note, I think that a better deal for Apple and NBC would be to delay the "sale" of the season but in it's place add commercial "streaming" of the shows directly to AppleTV. This would increase NBC's ad revenue and make AppleTV more attractive to consumers, as long as the advertising is not too intrusive.
I'm truly, truly amazed that they think we're so DIM that we can't read between the lines. Both Apple AND NBC have some reading between the lines going on. I just happened to think that NBC's "read betweens" are MUCH MUCH worst.
Quote:
For NBC:
We wanted to charge more, though only to the wholesale price. True, it is more than double the wholesale price, but Apple did not have to make the final price "double". Also, we wanted to bundle episodes together, and this would make the price in certain cases perhaps lower than $1.99 on select shows. This creates "attractive" choices for consumers and allows us more pricing flexibility. --Yes, if you don't buy a bundle, Apple's retail price would probably be as they said, but Apple could also forgo some of its profit and make it less. Maybe even as low as $4.00! Moreover, yes... we're jealous of Apple's profitability, in the face of our own challenges in revenue. We believe piracy is effecting our sales, and while iPod owners have little to do with it, we think that some symbolic gesture by Apple would be useful. While most video content on iPods is more than likely legit, and its the music that is more questionable, we feel Apple needs to perhaps compensate us for this vague fear we have. We're making efforts to make the ripping of a DVD to a computer more illegal than its been up to now. While we can't really stop people running "TiVo's" on their computers, and this right has already been secured,
Quote:
For Apple:
We have a standard pricing structure. While NBC did not explicitly say, "we want you to charge double", that's basically what would have to happen for us to maintain the integrity of how we believe our store works best for buyers. We've made allowances for movies to be anywhere from $9.99 to $14.99, based on the category of the film and its release time. That's what we started with. TV Shows started at $1.99 because that's what we saw "working" for that category. Nothing is changing about the content, so raising prices now and requiring "bundle" deals to get reasonable prices on certain shows would sour our customers on a very sensitive part of what makes our store work. Let's be clear, we would have to charge $4.99 on each show to make maintain our margins. We could afford to charge less, but our profitability would be in question. depending on some products to carry the "weight" of others. We know the TV industry is being told that downloadable content is NOT the way forward. They prefer more control as "streaming" ad-based content. We will not swallow any poison pills and do ourselves in by confusing our marketplace. We KNEW what would work going in, and have proven success. NBC's expensive requirements for single episodes were NOT the way forward.
Honeslty, NBC should just take the plunge and simply divide hour-long episodes into 2 parts at $1.99 each if they can. Let people get pissed at them that way.
In addition to various other points made by others such as:
the price on iTunes is comparable with, for example, Amazon, and
the highly saleable nature of iPods (e.g. in Europe) without TV shows on iTunes
it is surely highly in NBCs interest that Apple should sell iPods as this will expand the market for sales on iTunes of NBCs shows; a virtuous cycle! To make out that it is purely in Apple's interests is another mistake of NBCs along with attempts at outrageous price hikes!
"It is clear that Apple?s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."
What???? The current pricing is too expensive for something that does not exist (not physical or material).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
That'd be nice, but if you think about it, it's a little much to ask. All of these things have vastly different file sizes, so they require different amounts of bandwidth in order to be transmitted; it costs different amounts of money, therefore, to get them to consumers when downloaded over the internet. If anything, there should be a standard, per-gigabyte price of transmission (25c per gig sounds about right to me).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
So, are you saying you'd take a cut in salary for the work you do? Say, 1/10th of what you're getting? I agree that the talent has no control over the final pricing most of the time (and almost never get the lion's share of the money), but they still have to get paid.
Why is it that intellectual property is somehow deemed free? Don't the musicians, film makers, etc. need to get paid? It's like saying we should sell cars for $100 dollars. Really, it'll be the factory workers who take the cut, not the company heads. $1 for CD's, DVD's, etc.? How do you pay the people who make them?
NBC also said that they episodes will continue to be sold until the current contract expires in December. This they cannot possibly know, as I'm sure in Apple's contract with them Apple has no obligation to sell the episodes at all. And it was Apple's decision, not NBC's, that if the contract wasn't renewed or some other guarantee signed, they would not sell any episodes, only to have the seasons cut off in the middle. This should be Apple's right.
If NBC wants to sell the episodes until December, they have to extend the contract for those episodes until the end of the season, at the current prices. They simply have no upper hand in this matter.
Maybe they can go the equivalent of "month to month". I doubt Apple would pull the episodes as long as NBC is willing to let the arrangement continue. I think the Universal music deal is like that, there is no contract but it's still being sold.
So, are you saying you'd take a cut in salary for the work you do? Say, 1/10th of what you're getting? I agree that the talent has no control over the final pricing most of the time (and almost never get the lion's share of the money), but they still have to get paid.
Why is it that intellectual property is somehow deemed free? Don't the musicians, film makers, etc. need to get paid? It's like saying we should sell cars for $100 dollars. Really, it'll be the factory workers who take the cut, not the company heads. $1 for CD's, DVD's, etc.? How do you pay the people who make them?
You're absolutely correct... artists certainly do deserve to get paid. The problem is that the big media companies actually make much more than the artist in the majority of cases, and most artists make far more money from concert tickets than from royalties from CD sales... same thing with the movie market, ticket sales make more money than the home movie market. Anyway, a lower price would probably not impact the artist a lot, just the media company which is really just a big, greedy middleman.
When you're talking about "the people who make them", i.e. the factory workers, do not forget that with the advent of digital distribution, they are unnecessary. You can transmit media over the internet without the need for physical media so, while companies could still manufacture CD's, Blu-ray and DVD's, and people would probably still buy them, they could conceivably offer all-digital, non-physical products at far lower prices because nothing really needs to be manufactured anymore.
I agree that its not binary, but Apple isn't interested in promoting consumer confusion in its own marketplace. This idea that people need to scout around looking for "deals" is stupid. Apple decided that songs on iTunes was 99 cents here in the U.S. that's the price of a song, and I'm sure they've defined a song further by its length. I've been looking at Amazon too. If NBC's proposals are so consumer-friendly, they should start forcing Amazon to take on these new "ideas" for "bundles" and "flexible pricing". In some ways they have.
In a way, the iTunes pricing sets the tone for the industry. If another shop has it at a higher price, then they need to offer something to make it worth the extra. As it is, they need to offer more at the same price in order to get people to give them a second look.
You're absolutely correct... artists certainly do deserve to get paid. The problem is that the big media companies actually make much more than the artist in the majority of cases, and most artists make far more money from concert tickets than from royalties from CD sales... same thing with the movie market, ticket sales make more money than the home movie market. Anyway, a lower price would probably not impact the artist a lot, just the media company which is really just a big, greedy middleman.
That's ignoring the investment being done. Some investments pay off, some don't. Maybe they are expecting too much of a payoff, I don't know. My understanding with media companies of most kinds is that maybe one in ten projects really pay off, the other nine don't quite break even, and it's that one that make up for the other nine.
Quote:
When you're talking about "the people who make them", i.e. the factory workers, do not forget that with the advent of digital distribution, they are unnecessary. You can transmit media over the internet without the need for physical media so, while companies could still manufacture CD's, Blu-ray and DVD's, and people would probably still buy them, they could conceivably offer all-digital, non-physical products at far lower prices because nothing really needs to be manufactured anymore.
The manufacturing and distribution costs aren't that high. There are some $1 DVDs, but they are very cheaply packed and I think most of them include public domain works that probably can be legally downloaded for free from some places. The $5 DVDs at Wal*Mart are probably just overstock that wouldn't sell at Best Buy.
The above statement makes it clear that Shields thinks that they diserve all your money. After all you should be paying more because he runs a company that pays Actors, Directors, and Producers outragous (sic) sums of money. Not to mention the Gaffer making $120,000. a year to set the lights on the set!
Do you know what hours production staff are generally required to work? If you had to work 16 hours a day to keep your job, would $120,000 be enough pay to ruin your health, social life, marriage and family? Not to mention, your figure has been contested.
Comments
No way could NBC imagine people ponying up $4.99 for an episode ... but I figure that they did want more for wahtever they considered their premium or hot programs and were trying to persuade Apple to support the cost increase with advertising sales of some sort ... Apple refused to go along, and without the ad revenue the cost would effectively be the $4.99.
I also think that NBC is now (whether from the get-go or a lemon fix) using the flap to publicize it's upcoming portal with News Corp which will most likely flop - because it will be stuffed to the gills with the above mentioned ads ...
A couple of take aways ...
No way could NBC imagine people ponying up $4.99 for an episode ...
I would pay $4.99 and perhaps $9.99 for new direct to iTunes FireFly episodes...but that's a different kettle of fish than what NBC is doing. And it is questionable how many folks are like me that would spring $5-10 bucks for a 40 min episode.
Not that I was as impressed with B5:The Lost Tales (direct to DVD) but it's understandable given how the cast has long scattered (or is no longer with us), the sets gone and the limited budget.
Game. set. Match.
NBC will have to promise that the whole new season will be available before Apple takes them back. i.e. 1.99 is here to stay. bitches.
DRM'd low res content for the win suckers! Now who's the bitches?
What???? The current pricing is too expensive for something that does not exist (not physical or material).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
Funny enough : Over here in Europe this is precisely what is happening. In France each iPOd sold results in a copyright levy of ?8 ($9.38) in Germany it is ?2.74. The list goes on. These levys are then collected by the agencies in charge of author rights (SACEM, GEMA, BUMA/STERMA etc.) and passed onto the IP owners. Which would be (for instance) Universal or NBC Universal
Another aspect where they speak with a split tongue is on recordable CD/DVD where once again a similar levy is charged PER CD and passed onto the IP owners via the schema above. In France it's 0.30? per CD and 1.5?) per DVD.
In Germany there is a levy as well on the burners : 6.42 ? CD and 7.89 ? for a DVD burner.
So in all: fairness IP giants you already participate greatly in the commercial success of the hardware sales ! At least have the guts to be honest and open abouuut it !
First you obvsiouly don't know how much a gaffer makes. Seasoned gaffers in Los Angeles can make 70-80K a year. That's not a lot in Los Angeles.
Second, you don't know what a gaffer does. Gaffers do not set the lights on the set. They accurately determine, based on the type of camera, the camera angle, position of the actors, materials used in the set construction, desired lighting effect, and a lot of other factors, the luminosity, angle other information about the lighting. Saying that a gaffer "Sets the lights on the set" is like saying Steve Jobs "tells people what to do". Listen to the commentary on DVDs of a show like West Wing and you'll hear the director rave about theLD (who is a gaffer) at least once.
Third, an Apple fan accusing Hollywood of having inflated salaries is like the teapot calling the kettle black. As a person who works in the technology business in California and knows many Apple employees, you should find out what Apple pays even its entry level engineers. Hint: $120,000 isn't too far off for those guys.
And all you Apple fanboys (on this site and others) who say they will "get their NBC content one way or the other (hint hint, wink wink)" should think about the NBC person who says "I will get Leopard one way or the other" too. Pirating Leopard is just as easy, and just as wrong.
I don't think we need to get too caught up in this. I don't think the original gaffer comment was from somebody well-informed or rational... Content developers and specialists (DP, lighting, editors, etc.) and Technologists (Apple engineers, GUI designers, etc, etc...) We're all in the same boat here... Apple + Creative Creation = Good (for the most part).
Let's remember it is the (cliched, but true) "suits" that have no concept of art, doing something right, creativity or hard work, that are screwing everything up.
While the plot and characters of Heroes don't exactly draw me in, I appreciate the high production value. A lot of effort from those "in the shadows" that make those "in the light" look good. They should get their deserved royalties (if that is the scheme) ... It's a pity less royalties for the hard working person on the show because of BitTorrent pirating.
And Hulu.com already has a major disadvantage out the gates at this stage - it is not ready and not available as this major NBC content fiasco is happening. Just as the new TV season is upon us, YouTube and BitTorrent rake up new highs. For shame, NBC executives, bad time to play the "fuck you Apple" card.
Actually, that's not really true!
According to Wikipedia (which should be accurate, in this case):
"NBC Universal is a media and entertainment company formed in May 2004 by the combination of General Electric's NBC with Vivendi Universal Entertainment, part of the French Media Group, Vivendi SA. GE owns 80% of NBC Universal with the remaining 20% owned by Vivendi SA."
So they're sister companies in that Vivendi owns a significant stake in both, even if one isn't a majority stake.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. That is not the way most of the world would define "sister company."
Also, AI's report refers to Vivendi as NBC's "parent company" which is flatly incorrect. GE is the parent company. Period. (Check the annual reports of GE and Vivendi).
...bundle shows together in more "attractive" ways...
Yeah, right. We all know what that will be. Some marketing people deciding what should be sold together. I think I'll pass, thank you.
First of all, some clarifications.
NBC said they did not suggest that the per episode price should go up to $4.99. This is true. This is the retail price, and Apple sets the retail price.
But what they're not being honest about is that they did, as apple claims, double the wholesale price. Apple's forecast based on the new wholesale pricing was what dictated that episodes be sold at $4.99 to maintain profit levels.
NBC also said that they episodes will continue to be sold until the current contract expires in December. This they cannot possibly know, as I'm sure in Apple's contract with them Apple has no obligation to sell the episodes at all. And it was Apple's decision, not NBC's, that if the contract wasn't renewed or some other guarantee signed, they would not sell any episodes, only to have the seasons cut off in the middle. This should be Apple's right.
If NBC wants to sell the episodes until December, they have to extend the contract for those episodes until the end of the season, at the current prices. They simply have no upper hand in this matter.
Apple may not have the "right" to stop selling the shows based on the contract but it really doesn't matter. All that matters is if Apple can delay a court case long enough to run out the contract before a judge rules in favor of NBC. That should not be too hard to do, heck even a 4-8 week delay in releasing the shows would be devastating to the sales, especially given that the consumers know that they are not guaranteed that they will be able to get the whole season.
On a side note, I think that a better deal for Apple and NBC would be to delay the "sale" of the season but in it's place add commercial "streaming" of the shows directly to AppleTV. This would increase NBC's ad revenue and make AppleTV more attractive to consumers, as long as the advertising is not too intrusive.
For NBC:
We wanted to charge more, though only to the wholesale price. True, it is more than double the wholesale price, but Apple did not have to make the final price "double". Also, we wanted to bundle episodes together, and this would make the price in certain cases perhaps lower than $1.99 on select shows. This creates "attractive" choices for consumers and allows us more pricing flexibility. --Yes, if you don't buy a bundle, Apple's retail price would probably be as they said, but Apple could also forgo some of its profit and make it less. Maybe even as low as $4.00! Moreover, yes... we're jealous of Apple's profitability, in the face of our own challenges in revenue. We believe piracy is effecting our sales, and while iPod owners have little to do with it, we think that some symbolic gesture by Apple would be useful. While most video content on iPods is more than likely legit, and its the music that is more questionable, we feel Apple needs to perhaps compensate us for this vague fear we have. We're making efforts to make the ripping of a DVD to a computer more illegal than its been up to now. While we can't really stop people running "TiVo's" on their computers, and this right has already been secured,
For Apple:
We have a standard pricing structure. While NBC did not explicitly say, "we want you to charge double", that's basically what would have to happen for us to maintain the integrity of how we believe our store works best for buyers. We've made allowances for movies to be anywhere from $9.99 to $14.99, based on the category of the film and its release time. That's what we started with. TV Shows started at $1.99 because that's what we saw "working" for that category. Nothing is changing about the content, so raising prices now and requiring "bundle" deals to get reasonable prices on certain shows would sour our customers on a very sensitive part of what makes our store work. Let's be clear, we would have to charge $4.99 on each show to make maintain our margins. We could afford to charge less, but our profitability would be in question. depending on some products to carry the "weight" of others. We know the TV industry is being told that downloadable content is NOT the way forward. They prefer more control as "streaming" ad-based content. We will not swallow any poison pills and do ourselves in by confusing our marketplace. We KNEW what would work going in, and have proven success. NBC's expensive requirements for single episodes were NOT the way forward.
Honeslty, NBC should just take the plunge and simply divide hour-long episodes into 2 parts at $1.99 each if they can. Let people get pissed at them that way.
~ CB
- the price on iTunes is comparable with, for example, Amazon, and
- the highly saleable nature of iPods (e.g. in Europe) without TV shows on iTunes
it is surely highly in NBCs interest that Apple should sell iPods as this will expand the market for sales on iTunes of NBCs shows; a virtuous cycle! To make out that it is purely in Apple's interests is another mistake of NBCs along with attempts at outrageous price hikes!"It is clear that Apple?s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."
What???? The current pricing is too expensive for something that does not exist (not physical or material).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
That'd be nice, but if you think about it, it's a little much to ask. All of these things have vastly different file sizes, so they require different amounts of bandwidth in order to be transmitted; it costs different amounts of money, therefore, to get them to consumers when downloaded over the internet. If anything, there should be a standard, per-gigabyte price of transmission (25c per gig sounds about right to me).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
So, are you saying you'd take a cut in salary for the work you do? Say, 1/10th of what you're getting? I agree that the talent has no control over the final pricing most of the time (and almost never get the lion's share of the money), but they still have to get paid.
Why is it that intellectual property is somehow deemed free? Don't the musicians, film makers, etc. need to get paid? It's like saying we should sell cars for $100 dollars. Really, it'll be the factory workers who take the cut, not the company heads. $1 for CD's, DVD's, etc.? How do you pay the people who make them?
NBC also said that they episodes will continue to be sold until the current contract expires in December. This they cannot possibly know, as I'm sure in Apple's contract with them Apple has no obligation to sell the episodes at all. And it was Apple's decision, not NBC's, that if the contract wasn't renewed or some other guarantee signed, they would not sell any episodes, only to have the seasons cut off in the middle. This should be Apple's right.
If NBC wants to sell the episodes until December, they have to extend the contract for those episodes until the end of the season, at the current prices. They simply have no upper hand in this matter.
Maybe they can go the equivalent of "month to month". I doubt Apple would pull the episodes as long as NBC is willing to let the arrangement continue. I think the Universal music deal is like that, there is no contract but it's still being sold.
So, are you saying you'd take a cut in salary for the work you do? Say, 1/10th of what you're getting? I agree that the talent has no control over the final pricing most of the time (and almost never get the lion's share of the money), but they still have to get paid.
Why is it that intellectual property is somehow deemed free? Don't the musicians, film makers, etc. need to get paid? It's like saying we should sell cars for $100 dollars. Really, it'll be the factory workers who take the cut, not the company heads. $1 for CD's, DVD's, etc.? How do you pay the people who make them?
You're absolutely correct... artists certainly do deserve to get paid. The problem is that the big media companies actually make much more than the artist in the majority of cases, and most artists make far more money from concert tickets than from royalties from CD sales... same thing with the movie market, ticket sales make more money than the home movie market. Anyway, a lower price would probably not impact the artist a lot, just the media company which is really just a big, greedy middleman.
When you're talking about "the people who make them", i.e. the factory workers, do not forget that with the advent of digital distribution, they are unnecessary. You can transmit media over the internet without the need for physical media so, while companies could still manufacture CD's, Blu-ray and DVD's, and people would probably still buy them, they could conceivably offer all-digital, non-physical products at far lower prices because nothing really needs to be manufactured anymore.
I agree that its not binary, but Apple isn't interested in promoting consumer confusion in its own marketplace. This idea that people need to scout around looking for "deals" is stupid. Apple decided that songs on iTunes was 99 cents here in the U.S. that's the price of a song, and I'm sure they've defined a song further by its length. I've been looking at Amazon too. If NBC's proposals are so consumer-friendly, they should start forcing Amazon to take on these new "ideas" for "bundles" and "flexible pricing". In some ways they have.
In a way, the iTunes pricing sets the tone for the industry. If another shop has it at a higher price, then they need to offer something to make it worth the extra. As it is, they need to offer more at the same price in order to get people to give them a second look.
You're absolutely correct... artists certainly do deserve to get paid. The problem is that the big media companies actually make much more than the artist in the majority of cases, and most artists make far more money from concert tickets than from royalties from CD sales... same thing with the movie market, ticket sales make more money than the home movie market. Anyway, a lower price would probably not impact the artist a lot, just the media company which is really just a big, greedy middleman.
That's ignoring the investment being done. Some investments pay off, some don't. Maybe they are expecting too much of a payoff, I don't know. My understanding with media companies of most kinds is that maybe one in ten projects really pay off, the other nine don't quite break even, and it's that one that make up for the other nine.
When you're talking about "the people who make them", i.e. the factory workers, do not forget that with the advent of digital distribution, they are unnecessary. You can transmit media over the internet without the need for physical media so, while companies could still manufacture CD's, Blu-ray and DVD's, and people would probably still buy them, they could conceivably offer all-digital, non-physical products at far lower prices because nothing really needs to be manufactured anymore.
The manufacturing and distribution costs aren't that high. There are some $1 DVDs, but they are very cheaply packed and I think most of them include public domain works that probably can be legally downloaded for free from some places. The $5 DVDs at Wal*Mart are probably just overstock that wouldn't sell at Best Buy.
The above statement makes it clear that Shields thinks that they diserve all your money. After all you should be paying more because he runs a company that pays Actors, Directors, and Producers outragous (sic) sums of money. Not to mention the Gaffer making $120,000. a year to set the lights on the set!
Do you know what hours production staff are generally required to work? If you had to work 16 hours a day to keep your job, would $120,000 be enough pay to ruin your health, social life, marriage and family? Not to mention, your figure has been contested.