Attack of the $1 DVDs 345
fm6 writes "The NY Times has an interesting piece on DVDs that sell for one or two bucks. Not all of them are crap -- apparently a lot of good movies never got copyrighted properly. But there's no silent movies ('not mass market'), or movies that aren't 'family friendly.' Here's what I find really interesting: none of the DVD companies mentioned in the article sell online -- it's all through discount bins in supermarkets and drug stores."
That's not the reason (Score:2, Interesting)
Some of the Highlights I've bought (Score:5, Interesting)
- Popeye Cartoons (there is a series of four discs, very good qulaity
- Santa Claus vs. the Martians (a true classic!)
- Off the wall and calssic horror movies - Bela Lugosi meets the Brooklyn Gorilla and other obvious 60s/70s schlock
- classics like Road to Bali and the Inspector General
- Some Little Rascals Episodes
- Three stooges cartoons (I haven't had the guts to grab those, they are pretty lame)
Everytime I see such a display I find it worth my tme.Re:Shipping costs (Score:3, Interesting)
Even with shipping at $3, I would think most people who would buy these DVDs at $1 would not buy only one item and pay $3 shipping on it. I would guess they'd pick 10-15 at a time and pay about the same in shipping. In fact, a higher shipping price would be an incentive to buy more in bulk.
secret to cheap dvds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:$1 for a DVD (Score:3, Interesting)
They are in many different formats including full-resolution DVD sized mpeg
Re:That's not the reason (Score:1, Interesting)
>the wal-marts and the likes order millions at a
>time and that's why the price is so low
Large supermarkets do not make their money by buying cheaply by buying in bulk - the cost to make the goods can only go so low and as pointed out in another comment it costs more than $1 to make and distribute the DVD.
Large chains make their money by buying goods with long credit terms, up to 90 days. A small supermarket in the UK easily turns over a million UKP in a day. They make their money on the interest they earn in the credit period with their suppliers.
Re:never got copyrighted properly?? (Score:2, Interesting)
I find rips just more convenient (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, it's not like I don't own movies, music, etc . . . actually, I own a LOT. But I always rip the ones I have, if I haven't already downloaded them (and thus bought them because I liked them so much, and wanted to actually own them, for principle or posterity or 'cause they were on some crazy $1.50 sale or etc) simply because it's sooo much more convenient.
Comparing TV series saved on CD to DVD, if I'm watching on my computer, it's much easier to just pop in the disc and double-click on the episode, instead of having to actually navigate menus, wait while there's time delays, and so forth. And proper rips, I can just switch at a moments notice between normal audio and, say, a commentary track, so if I'm listening to the directors talking, and then I go "oh, yeah, I want to just re-watch that scene in normal right now" I can actually do that in seconds instead of the convoluted process in DVDs.
It's the difference that comes with having a format that's the raw media (relatively speaking) instead of it tucked away inside of virtual packaging. These points could go on and on, but I'm sure anyone reading
And so, yeah, for these movies it just makes sense for them, what with being in public domain and all, to be so easily available for download and distribution as rips.
Hey, even if the industry complains "free movies cut into our profit!", well them, you'll just have to make things that are new and interesting enough that people will want to buy the new ones even while they can get the classics for free. Hah, now that might make you get off your asses and do something worthwhile, now you have to compete with your own past!
Cereal Boxes are key (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite what the article is talking about, but sure is cheaper than $1.