Devoted to show business and the entertainment industry

what Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks does is entertain. Entertainment does not feed anyone or build roads to markets to sell beef or vegetable. Because of technology, we are now able to bring to a comparative level what movie stars are worth. They will still be adored by millions, we just won't pay that much for them.

That's one thing all of the industry is going to have to accept, that they aren't going to be paid the money for their product that they have been in the past.

When MPAA stops suing people for downloading movies, I'll go back to watching movies more than once or twice a year.

A lot of people agree with you. It's still amazing to me how much the two organizations continue to fight against something rather than concentrate on creating higher quality products and delivery systems that people want.

RIAA and MPAA are, after all, primarily associations of lawyers for the industries - not actual workers such as actors or directors or singers or violinists, but the companies that are supposed to pay such people.

RANT -----

I do download some stuff: when was the last time you tried to buy a CD of recordings by King Oliver (jazz circa 1911-1930) or a DVD of Clara Bow (Barring her two most famous ones)? Heck, you have to go grey or black market to get some older Bugs Bunny cartoons (no longer "politically correct", which BTW is a concept established by the French Communist Party in the Twenties)! And if I buy a DVD or CD from Australia or England I have to play it on my computer because the regular players will not bypass the "region code". Or play European PAL DVDs in any case. And RIAA - MPAA consider playing such via computer (or some high-end players, which may also play condensed MP3 [CD], AVI/DIVX [DVD], or other formats) to be illegal (hey, they're COPIES not originals from the big companies).

Yes, I do still buy some movies (eg "The Over-the-Hill Gang" and "God's Gun" and even the complete "Xena: Warrior Princess" 6-season series) and a very few CDs ("Best of Henry Mancini") - but even for things that are available I can not bring myself to buy a DVD of a 193x Charlie Chan movie for the same price as, say, Willis in "Lucky Number Slevin".

It seems that it is another way that they could make more money by tapping into some of those classsics from the past and adding things to it that nobody currently has seen.

Again, it's the obsession with piracy that clouds their vision for creative thinking.

Hey, if they were all so REALLY concerned with this, why do they make recordable CDs and DVDs? If they were concerned they would go after those who make recording equipment, not others.

I think it's a stalling action because they don't know how to handle the disruption in the industry.

Again, they've got their attention on the wrong things and keep making stupid comments and decisions as a result.

If Hollywood and the music industry stopped selling the drek they currently are, maybe more people would be willing to actually pay for what they see/hear. Sure, I'd like to see certain movies on the big screen, but paying full price for most of them will never happen because I don't feel I'm getting my money's worth.

Stop suing your customers and try to actually fix the problem instead of applying a band-aid to it.

Even though everyone's heard it for years already, it is no less true: $15-20 for a craptastic cd with 1 good song is robbery. The labels decide who is most marketable and refuse to sign the rest. The artists are not getting stung whatsoever by piracy; the labels are, and they deserve it. Music piracy is a form of civil disobedience and entirely justified when the labels get out of line. Look at the changes that piracy has brought. Music is now available online for about a buck a song because of piracy. Do you remember the labels and the very few artists who complained that they "don't sell individual songs...the entire album is a work of art?" How about songs purchased online that can only be played on the one device they were initially installed on?

It is this attitude why I have not gone to a concert, purchase music in any format or gone to the movies in 5 years. The money grubbing suits have angered this customer to resort to any free distribution that is available out there. And with the ever increasing tightening of licensing requirements, I would guess I won't know the next generation of bland, no talent shills that purport to be "entertainment"

Screw you, Hollywood.

I find it pathetic that you are not willing to post responses to your article that have differing views than that of your own. I sent in two posts that stated a view point of someone who has first hand experience in this issue and neither was posted. Additionally I sent you another reply asking why you had not posted them and asked you to do so. I simply want to express my opinion that you should not be writing articles when you are not even capable of listening to other view points or allowing your readers to hear another view point. I am sorry you are this incompetent; perhaps this industry would be better off if you were not writing such biased articles.

CB
NY, NY

Evidently anonymous, you don't know how to post, as this is the first post I've received from you. Possibly taking some training in that area will help you to understand the process so you can express your opinion.

I used the same process to post every response I have had to this article, if you decide not no include my response that is your decision. Do not blame this on a computer, or on my "lack of training."

CB
NY, NY