Panda Phil

Meanwhile pirates and video download sites step in to fill the demand.

David Levine

LOST has actually had pretty typicall drops. But even so, it started out so high, that even its 4th season numbers would make most shows 1st seasons jealous.

Simpsons is a huge exception. While current seasons don't sell what the earliest ones did its dropped off very little from release to release. 24 is the same way.

Silverscreenvid

As a member of the Screen Actor's Guild, you should know that you have the right to ask for millions of dollars for your participation in a movie or teleision show. Some actors exercise that right year in and year out and the studios pay for it. Others would like to exercise that right but no one is willing to pay the price. So they either accept a lower amount or look elsewhere.

There is only one Elvis, one Michael Jackson, one Johnny Cash, one Bruce Springsteen. They or their heirs have the right to determine how much their music is worth. Obviously, some people pay the price since I hear no shortage of their music in movies and TV shows. It's true that by charging less, more people would pay for it, but once you start lowering the price of your product, you have a very difficult time raising it again.

If Bruce Springsteen (and I have no idea if he does this or not, I'm just using him as an example) charges $100,000 to license a song for a DVD, some people would pay it. More would pay if he charged $50,000. BUT, if he lowers his price to $50,000, then the same arguments start all over again, and people will want the price lowered even more. The process never stops. It takes a shrewd businessperson to control this.

Many artists don't maximize their earnings, not just because they blow all their money on wild spending sprees, but because they don't recognize the value of their product and price it too low to begin with.

No one has the "right" to listen to this music, whether on the radio, on an album or on a soundtrack. The artist has that right. And there is no difference between Bruce Springsteen owning his music and Ford owning its cars. In each case, they decide how to price it. In each case, if they guess wrong, they could go bankrupt.

How much money have you given to down-on-their-luck musicians who have fallen on hard times because they don't make enough off their work. It's a downward spiral. If Springsteen is "forced" to take lower money for his songs, then you can bet that second string talent will have to take a pay cut for theirs ("I pay $10,000 for a Springsteen song; why should I pay that for yours?"), and then third string and fourth string and so forth.

cracksky

What an actor gets paid for a project doesn't affect the content of the release. If an artist demands the maximum amount for their song, it will affect the content of the DVD release. That's apples and oranges.

Rocketdog2000

Oh, I wouldn't quite say that. Many of the songs they replaced were pretty well known, by established artists - which is why they ended up not being able to use them, because the cost was going to be too high. They only kept what they could afford, along with those songs that were crucial to scenes that accompanied them. (or when certain bands actaully appeared on the show, like Save Ferris and Ivy) In the end, they had to change about 80% of the music that was used.

Granted, at least the producers (and those in charge of getting the original music for the series when it aired) did, as you say, take the time, effort and great care in selecting replacement music so that it would still fit in those scenes. For the most part, they did and excellent job, and I don't think the average person, or anyone who never watched the show prior would ever really notice. For that, I do applaud them on getting it done right, if it has to be done at all to get it released. But, having watched the show repeatedly before they made it onto DVD, and being one of the folks who identified songs on the show's messages boards for those inquiring about them, I notice the changes very easily.

All that said, while I do wish they could have kept the original music - the same with any other show - I'd rather have it changed, if necessary, than never be released at all.

Rocketdog2000

I've often wondered if this is why the remaining seasons of American Dreams have yet to be released? It was such a music-centric show, and when the first season came out on DVD, the SRP was something like $89.99. I never bought it at that price, mainly because it was so high, and only got around to picking it up after the price dropped. Now you can get if for less than $20 - but almost makes you wonder what's the point of you can't get the rest of the show. My only hope is that finally seeing Everwood Season 2 come out so many years after the first season debuted, that maybe, other studios will finally get around to releasing the rest of the seasons for shows they haven't yet.

Silverscreenvid

So what if it does. The producers of a television show have no inherent right to use particular music in their show, just as you have no inherent right to ever see that show on DVD.

The artists own the music. Period. End of story. They own it just the same as they own their home, their car, their musical equipment, and the shirt on their back. You wouldn't think of going to them and demanding that they sell their car to you at a "fair" price, but you somehow think that their music is somehow less their property.

If Bruce Springsteen should be forced to sell the DVD rights to his music at a fair price, why shouldn't he equally be forced to sell his songs to any movie company that wants them at a "fair" price. If I'm making a two-bit independent film, I'd love to have his music, the Beatles, the Stones, Johnny Cash, Michael Jackson, Elvis, Ray Charles, and others on the soundtrack. So I should just be able to demand that they allow me to do so for what I think is a reasonable price. And let's not limit it to the music. My movie would be better if I could just get Denzel Washington, Anthony Hopkins and Meryl Streep to star in it. So, why shouldn't they be forced to act in the movie at a "fair" price. And I need special effects. Let me get on the horn with some of the top CGI people in Hollywood and get them to work on it for a "fair" price.

Here's a concept that's apparently difficult for some people here to understand. There's some movies I'd love to see on DVD that I realize will probably never see the light of day. As an adult who understands about the property rights of others, I can understand that. There's a lot of other things I see in the stores every day that are overpriced compared to what I want to pay for them. I pass those by as well. You don't have a right to see any particular movie or TV show on DVD. If it is released, you don't have a right to demand that someone sell it to you at the price you want. You have the right not to purchase it.

You are wrong if you think that people won't pay a particular price for certain music. People are willing to pay that price because if they weren't, the artists would eventually be lowering their prices. Springsteen won't be taking a job at the local McDonald's to make ends meet while waiting for his music to sell. It's just like people are willing to pay $100,000 for a Rolls Royce. If they weren't, Rolls Royce would eventually be lowering its prices or shutting its doors.

Silverscreenvid

And while we're at it, I followed your link and saw your DVD on Amazon. I think it's a good DVD but I think a fair price for it is one dollar. I'm sure you're willing to sell it to me for a fair price of a dollar, aren't you? Because at the price Amazon is charging, I may never be able to afford it and I'd have to go through my entire life without hearing your music because you would be just like the other musicians trying to gouge your fans out there and deprive them of your music.

rw2516

I watched the Anchor Bay dvd of "The Entity" last night. In the end credits "Saturday Night's All Right" by Elton John was listed. Don't remember hearing it. There were two or three scenes where the oldest kid is in the garage or his room with rock music blaring but it was just generic rock music. I'd have to watch it again to be positive but pretty sure it wasn't in the movie.

snoopygirl

WKRP was one of those shows where the music was almost another one of the cast with the way it fit in. I would happily fork over a higher-than-usual price for a proper set with the music. I refused to buy the butchered version they chose to put out. It just wasn't the quality, hilarious show I remembered without the music included. My choice seems to be aging tapes of the original shows or shiny dvds without a necessary part of the content.

anomynous

*cough Malcolm in the Middle cough*

cracksky

That's not my DVD and I do think the price is too high here. In fact, I purchased it elsewhere cheaper. If you were my friend (and that isn't even a remote possibility because all my friends are super intelligent) I would simply burn you a copy.

WallyOPD

You think of their music as the same type of property as their house or car? If you use their car then they no longer have it, same with their house, their musical equipment, and the shirt on their back. When you use their music they still have it.

Yet again you are comparing two entirely different concepts. You're asking these other people to create new content for you, something which takes time and effort. Using an artist's pre-recorded music does not cost them either of these things.

I'm not saying artists should be forced to license their content at a certain price, but your comparisons don't make sense.

Isn't that what this whole thread is about? The studios frequently aren't willing to pay those prices, so the DVD sets either never get released or they get released with replacement music.

bsmith

True, but we really don't know what money they are getting versus what money they are passing on. Some are assuming that music rights holders are just sitting there with their high prices and no one is buying, or that they are losing money. We don't know that. Logically speaking you would have to think that what they are making is offsetting what they are passing up. In other words, some may be using the Walmart approach of selling volume cheapily, while others are using the boutique scenario of selling less but driving the price up so that they make more for what they do sell.

I don't know much about the music business but I asked a friend that at least has a high interest in music. And he supported the side many have presented here that the music business is cutthroat (I would suggest studios are similar). So from his perspective the music industry lost control of their market with downloads and no copy protection. So they may view this as one of the last gold mine opportunities to squeeze the most out of a poor overall situation.

hindolio

yesh, it is hard to compare physical property to intellectual property, but i believe silverscreens point is lost potential. as in, if you take my car for 30 minutes, even if i dont need it for that 30 minutes, you used it for whatever purpose and gained a certain "value". if you use my song, the same thing applies.

it took time and effort to create the original content in the first place. and when it was first made, it is possible that the artist made tons of money and possible the artist made nothing.

again, lost potential.

WallyOPD

I'm not arguing that the artist doesn't lose something, but it's not at all the same as losing physical property or time.

bsmith

No, but it probably has more value to them then any physical property or time. Especially, since it pays for the physical property they have and allows them to have time for other things. It is their livelyhood. This isn't the only profession where someone can milk a lifetime of benefits out of past accomplishments (e.g., artists, athletes, politicians, writers).

ben12

Wait, so do the Ally McBeal sets that are coming out (1st season and complete series) have all the original music in tact? This article makes it sound like they do.

andicus

Yes! According to many sources.

ben12

That's awesome!

Silverscreenvid

Those particular studios may not be willing to pay the price, but other people obviously are because (A) you hear music by these artists and groups all the time, and (B) they aren't going hungry.

If you are selling your product to 99% of your potential audience at $100, it makes no sense economically to lower the price to $50 just so the other 1% will buy it.

If no one was willing to pay the asking price for that music, you can bet that the artists would wind up lowering their prices.

Silverscreenvid

So in your view it's okay to steal some things from people but not okay to steal other things. Please let me know just which of your property it's okay to steal and where you live and I'll be right over.

writer106

I was thinking last night after watching Glee on Fox about the music licensing fees. I think if Glee lasts more than one season. It might not ever be released on DVD much like Cold Case.

BSTNFAN

I think the problem is with shows that were on before the DVD boom. The rights to the music didn't cover any type of home video release. These days, any studio that doesn't have that (and streaming, etc.) covered is run by morons.

Texan26

How I Met Your Mother DVDs is missing music. And this was in 2006. Here is a blog mentioning it: http://tuckersworld2.blogspot.com/20...een-on-tv.html