MPAA own the internet!

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

This is an interesting debate.

A good example of one man's trash being another man's treasure is in the buying up of toynami alpha fighter toys.

Maaaaaaannnnn I soo want one, but damn if I am going to pay the full price for them. I know it's the mech design that I love and not necesarily the product that was made based off it, but I'm stamping my foot down and not taking any risks.

They just don't sound like the money is going to a good cuase (ie in the quality of the product) and I so wish there was more competition in the toy industry instead of 1 company having the monopoly on a particular license for whatever reason.

I could give other examples of products being worth more money than more expensive ones, but not being able to get a share of the market because of a monopoly of control that prevents people from buying... but I won't bother.

I think that compeititon brings prices down and opens up the market so that more people can afford to buy things which in turn can be healthy for the economy (creates more jobs) when people start spending money. Once there is too much control under 1 roof, (that is only 1 company able to control the supply of any one thing) you get lots of high priced things that just aren't worth the money that is being asked for, but which people have no choice in getting because its all been agreed upon that such and such item must stay at a certain price no matter what regardless.(because in the past people were ignorant enough to pay that much so "why the fark should I lower it?"

But imagine if you will, that there were 3 or 4 companies all scrambling to make Mospeada toys at once (yeah I know it will never happen, but just pretend) and competing against each other for customers. You would start seeing the crappier companies shaping up to higher standards of quality and service and value for money just to survive, while the consumer has all the power and the alternatives through the choices he/she has. But noooo there's only 1 company and you tend to have to bite the bullet and settle for something crap because that's all there is, right? Is it fair? Nope. Did anyone force you to buy it? No. But my point is that too much power under 1 company acts as a bottle neck for the industry and isn't as healthy as havng rival competition. The giants run in fear when they see competition and complain they are going to go out of business. Well that's too bad I say. Business needs to adapt to change and accept it like the rest of us. They should not have some special right to take away a consumers ability to look at alternatives to getting something just so that they can force high prices for things and make all the profit. Profits should go to the people underneath that helped make that thing possible so there is more incentive to continue.

Everything in life is risky, I'm glad that changes force things to be offered at cheaper prices because there are many things I WOULD buy if only they were offered at a much chepaer prices. (and i would buy more of it so my money was spread out more evenly creating more jobs for people) The only thing that gets in the way is the bottleneck of big giants grouping together to decide what something is worth and not bowing to changes as technology allows. (as one poster pointed out)

Entertainment is subjective though. If something is crap, and you are not willing to pay money for it, then voice you opinion by buying something else. If you have some underground band that you love and want to support them, (but they just aren't mainstream enough to be known) buy thier cds to show support. People tend to buy what they know because it's been marketed well not necessarily because they think it's the best thing out there. A fan should help promote those things he likes if he wants prices to come down for things and people see that there is more money to invest in things that you like. (which results in increasing competition and preventing all the power going to a select group at the top of the pyramid who are banding together to control everything and fix prices so that they'll stay too high for the average joe to afford more of. The effect is it means profits go mainly towards the greedy few at the top, not into the workers or into improving the quality of the item/service at the bottom.)

Now.. it would be a different story if you were talking about something that really WAS worth the asking price for, because I would buy something that was expensive if I could see where the money went, but I think people are more worried about those things that just AREN'T worth the price and who are complaining that the industry won't change to reflect the times. Could it be 'they' want to maintain thier stranglehold/control/monopoly on the industry and are scared so they are preventing us all from looking at alternatives? As I said, if a vast majority of people just DON'T buy stuff that wasn't worth the price and only bought and promoted stuff that they thought was good, then more money would be distrubuted evenly acorss more companies, helping to break the power from those making all the decisions at the top. Without competition, consumers lose out in the end and have to pay high prices for things because in the real world ALL companies are greedy! It's a case of helping lesser-known ones on the bottom who are motivated to do well (ie satisfy thier small base of customers) and compete versus rewarding the greedy ones who have no incentive to listen to you because they are already too powerful to care and just want to maintain thier existing stranglehold.

Edited February 28, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[MSW]

But here's my main beef... these companies that are charging excessive ammounts for CDs and DVDs (actually, I'm okay for $20 for most DVDs, although I do believe that anime is too expensive). And many of us here aren't making idle threats... we aren't buying the crap they're shoveling at us. They're not pulling in the kind of dollars they want, so what do they do? They blame pirates, they blame consumers, they blame everyone except themselves, when basic economics tells them that just because you charge more, doesn't mean you make more profit.

If the MPAA and the members of RIAA were charging unreasonable prices, then realizing that people aren't going to pay or just being content with what they're bringing it (which is still probably plenty), I'm sure most of us would be content to just not pay for their overpriced crap. It's their piss-poor attitude and willingness to blame everyone but themselves that I think most of us are really calling them on. Afterall, to continue to use your examples, you don't hear Nike bitching that they made $30 million less than they wanted because people who don't feel like paying $120 for a pair of shoes are buying K-Mart Kickers instead.

Actually I would think any industry in simular shoes would act the same way...

Yeah, there are lots of bootleg Transformers out there...but they are obviously lower quality then legitimate products...Once we get something like a Star Trek replicator - that can make perfect copies of the same quality as cheaply and easily as CD/DVDs...Afterall its not like Kmart Kickers are digital perfect copies of $120 Nike shoes.

It's not like the RIAA and MPAA only just started produceing crap exclusively...hell, if they did then even the bootleggers would have a hard time selling thier warez...wether you see thier actions as rash or not, the RIAA, MPAA, and even the videogame industry have legitimate issues...It doesn't take a economic scientist to notice the downword trend began when places like Napster and cheap CD/DVD burners and recordable media hit the market....and lord knows the industry was produceing crap, long... long before then

[Stamen0083]

Is it worth the asking price to you...or is it that you just don't have the money right now?

It's not so much a finance question. It has more to do with quality of the product. Is it good? Certainly. Is it good enough to be worth its MSRP? Definitely not. Would you pay the set price? No. Would you definitely buy it if it was a little cheaper? Hell yeah.

The point is that contents of stuff has varying worth. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it's not. In the case of music CD's, definitely not.

[MSW]

Entertainment is subjective though. If something is crap, and you are not willing to pay money for it, then voice you opinion by buying something else. If you have some underground band that you love and want to support them, (but they just aren't mainstream enough to be known) buy thier cds to show support. People tend to buy what they know because it's been marketed well not necessarily because they think it's the best thing out there.

Quite true!...Im amazed at the people who buy a CD cause they repeatedly heard a song on the radio...and maybe, just maybe listen to the entire CD just once before proclaiming all the other tracks are crap...But then again, at 35 I've found I'm more musicaly adverntureus then most 25 year olds I know...most people haven't heard of Tubring, the Pimps, N.I.L.8, even fairly national (and now largely defunct) acts like Screeching Weasle and the Dead Milkmen...Mention Gwar, KMFDM, and even the Butthole Surfers and most folks look completely confused ... but I guess, just like food, some people can be very picky in what they enjoy

The point is that contents of stuff has varying worth. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it's not. In the case of music CD's, definitely not.

Now I don't think a Britney Spears CD is worth $20, but I don't have an issue with her selling them for that much...but a CD from a favorite band (say http://www.tubring.com/ <- a very awsome experimental band!), to me can be worth $30 or even more...

Edited February 28, 2005 by MSW

[Oihan]

So just because they sell you crap at a certain price that there's nothing wrong with paying it?

Why not?...People have been buying $100,000+ Ferraris and Lambos for decades now...its not like those cars cost that much to make...hell you could duplicate the performance with a modded Mustang or Camaro, and still spend less then $30k...but no one has been bitching that Ferrari has been inflateing prices...just like no one has been bitching that Tommy clothes or Nike shoes are priced too high either...

Like Radd had said...if they changed the price of a small pizza to $50...are you just gonna sit there and accept it and pay an arm and a leg for it? If that's the case, I'll be sure to start a pizza place in your area and charge you that $50 for a small pizza...or $75 for a medium...or $100 for a large. I mean...you're willing to pay such a rediculous amount...wtf not?! I need to make a living too, don't I?

If I thought the pizza was worth it, and had both the moneyand desire to buy it...yeah, I would buy a $50 or even $150 pizza...just as if I had the money and desire to buy a Ferrari that I thought was worth the asking price...Just as if I had the money and desire to buy a CD/DVD that I thought was worth the asking price....If I don't have the money or the desire, or think the product is worth the price...I won't buy it, end of story.

And yeah, I happen to think most DVDs are worth $20...doesn't mean I buy them all...but for the just the ticket price for you and your girlfriend to see the film in theaters, you can watch the film hundreds of times on DVD, pause it, fastforward, rewind, freezeframe, watch the extras, listen to the audio commentary...overall you get a much better value for the money then watching it in theaters.

But as I pointed out before with books...even posted a link that spells out printing costs and everything...DVDs and CDs are no more overinflated pricewise as mass printed books are...and they aren't nearly as inflated as fad clothing, cars, even toys...even Radd admits I have some agreeable points...bottom line is always the same...don't like it, don't buy it.

Anyone hear about Warner Bros. deciding to sell $2-$3 DVDs in China to combat piracy? First saw it on doom9 and then heard it on CNN.

Sounds like they could still turn a profit, save on attorney fees and keep the consumer more content by dropping prices to reasonable levels

Yeah read more about it here:

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/20.../ap1845443.html

They are useing a state run printer and distribution system...meaning no "middle-man" distributer and retailer to give a share of the sale too...won't happen here, or in other freemarkets, at least not without a substansial change in commerce laws

You kept mentioning that if you thought it was worth buying and you had the money that you'd go out and buy it. That's where I'm and I'm sure a few others are coming from. I for one don't think a lot of the sh*t they produce is worth buying. If there's one song on a CD I like and I've heard the rest of the songs from someone else...no way in hell I'm gonna go buy that CD just to hear that one song. It's not worth it.

I thought this whole topic started as to how the MPAA are shutting down all the bitorrent sites....which brought up the whole cost of CDs and DVDs...which brought me to my points. And I'll bring my points up again...if it's not worth buying...I'm not gonna pay for it...but it's not gonna stop me from doing what I've been doing from the start. I'll continue to d/l, unless I deem it worth buying. That's what I've been trying to get at to you...and I thought my examples would have done that...guess not. And I beg to differ when you say ill formed arguments.

[Oihan]

Is it worth the asking price to you...or is it that you just don't have the money right now?

It's not so much a finance question. It has more to do with quality of the product. Is it good? Certainly. Is it good enough to be worth its MSRP? Definitely not. Would you pay the set price? No. Would you definitely buy it if it was a little cheaper? Hell yeah.

The point is that contents of stuff has varying worth. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it's not. In the case of music CD's, definitely not.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

[eugimon]

The thing that gets me is how much DVDs cost... for the most part, these are movies that already made back their money and then some in the theaters... and yet for a few hundred thousand dollars worth of work, they charge so much for the discs.

Movies, books, music, etc... don't cost a lot of money because of the media it's printed on. All things considered, those things cost a few pennies to make, at most.

What we are paying for is the intellectual property, the printed words, the filmed sequences, the recorded music. This is something authors, film makers, recording artists live on. They make these things to make money, which is the same reason any of us go to work everyday for.

I won't comment on the pricing structure, but I will remind people that there are DVD's out there that cost $29.99, and then there are DVD's out there that cost $7.99. There are CD's out there that cost $19.99, and then there are CD's out there that cost $1.99.

Well, yes and no... you really aren't paying for the intellectual property... you're paying for a license to view the intellectual property. In fact, often times when you buy a painting or sculpture, the artist still has control over how the piece is displayed and if there can be any changes or alterations made to it and gets a cut everytime the piece changes hands (not every artist mind you)

You don't own the contents of the CD/Book/Whatever, you only have the right to view and copy for your own purposes.

In regards to artists making money off of these DVDs and CDs.. that's pretty much a joke for the vast majority of artists out there... most of us do work for companies that OWN everything we do... we doodle on a napkin, our company owns it... they own the intellectual property rights for what we produce. It is the very rare and fortunate artist that owns what they create.. unless you're a fine artist... but graphic and commercial artists? nope.. they see very little of the money from the sale of reproductions of their work. Most musicians earn their money from concerts and selling swag... most graphic and commercial artists draw a salary or earn an hourly wage.. most of us for very little money. So please don't misuderstand what I'm saying as to mean that I think we should rip off joe blow artist, because I am joe blow artist.

To me, DVDs are very similar to buying an "extended warranty" at circuit city or whichever electronics chain you want to insert... that is, it is basically profit. No services are usually ever delivered; in the case of warranties the majority of people who buy the warranty will never use it and many find that when they do go to use it, there are reasons why they can't that was never explained to them and with DVDs this is work that has already earned its money in the theaters... and yet these giant companies just sit there, and rake in the profits. perhaps I would feel differently if the actual artists were compensated more... but only the elite of hollywood really get any sort of power or control... most of sign away our souls to work.

As far as pricing goes...

1. Recent class action lawsuit, RIAA lost.. they HAVE been ripping customers off.

2. Universal was the company that first introduced the pricing tier for DVDs in a bid to stay competetive... not as a means of trying to deliver content to consumers in a any sort of fair or meaningful way.

3. Discount bins at Walmart don't count.

[eugimon]

hmm, go look at the size of the average book and weight and compare it to the size and weight of a two DVD SE release... which one takes up more space? Which one weighs more?

Which one is made of a thin film of metal and covered in plastic and which one requires workers to chop down a tree, drivers to transport the tree, workers to process the tree into wood pulp, a factory to turn the wood pulp into paper, bleach the paper and then ship the paper to a printing house, workers to run the presses?

Try to guess which costs more to manufacture, has more steps in the manufacturing process and costs more to ship and takes more space to sell.

Tell me again how DVDs are more expensive to make than a book.

CD and DVDs require workers to source raw metal ores, ship it to refineries, refine it into alloys, ship it to disk pressing plants...plastics require oil , which must be drilled, transported, refined, transported again....then there is packageing, printing of covers, inserts, liner notes ...

A lot more goes into CD/DVDs then you think. The packageing alone uses the same printing, binding, resources as books...plus the added fluxuation of oil basied resources and transportation costs...even if they refine the manufactureing process, if the cost of materials goes up accordingly, there is no net saveings.

Yet CD prices have remained relitively the same sence introduced well over a decade ago ... yeah, the cost of liveing has increased during that same time...books have INCREASED, food has INCREASED, houseing has INCREASED....but so too your income has INCREASED...whcih allows you to not only pay your bills, but still have the same percentage of disposeable income left over for things like CDs...and sense this percentage is of a larger income, it means you have more purchaseing power for the SAME priced CD/DVDs as you had over a decade ago when first introduced.

And for the love of god, calm your ass down...I didn't call you a nazi, or even insinuate that type of infantile BS...You do not need CD/DVDs to exist...you wont starve to death without them, you won't freeze to death without them, they won't heal illness...they are a luxury...nothing more, nothing less.

Uhm... right, so the gas in the chainsaws, the diesel in the trucks.. the coal and oil burned to power the factories... the huge amounts of pollution produced to bleach paper and make it acid free.. the toxic glues (also petroleum) used to glue the binding... the inks... the graphic artists who design the covers, and create the fonts... all these things don't factor in at all?

I'm actually well aware of what goes into making a DVD.. I know wage slaves that make DVDs.

And feel free to continue to not address any of my points... go look at census data go and actually see if the middle class is growing or shrinking. see if wages in the US have kept up with inflation.

As for DVD prices staying stable.. well, let us just forget that DVD prices were not stable and that bulk discounting by Fry's and Best Buys (which the MPAA tried stop) forced companies to start selling DVDs at lower prices.

And you can go back and edit your posts all you want but I already quoted you... you said:

And the whole argument about films already makeing thier money back is moot...hell, if companies were forced to limit thier profitability...we would all be liveing under nazi rule right now, without even the crap films to entertain us.

Which is so incredibly poorly worded that it could mean:

1. It is right for companies to double charge us for goods because the nazis were worse... which makes no sense... that's like saying it's right for me to rob you because it would be worse for me to kill you.

2. Corporate greed defeted Nazism... so we should reward them by placing no controls on them. Which is so far from the truth it makes me really afraid for the education system in this country.

3. That I am nazi sympathizer for wanting to place controls on corporations, since without corporate greed we would be living under nazi rule.

Judging from how quickly you resorted to profanity and condescention, and how you went back and edited your post.. I don't think my reacting is far off the mark. Why wouldn't one become angry at having their arguement linked with Nazism? why would you even bring that up? And then, having brought that up, get all huffy that someone would be offended at the comparison?

And once again... let me just bring this up one more time, since it obvious you don't get what I'm saying... I never said that entertainment was a need. I never said people were entitled to steal the stuff. I never said people should steal the stuff. I never even suggested it might be a legitimate form of civil protest.

In FACT.. if you bothered to read my post.. I said that the argument of boycotting the product was an ENTIRLEY LEGITIMATE form of protest... I merely NOTED.. as in commented upon a HISTORIC FACT... that there are always people who are willing to break the law to get what they want.

edit: heh.. messed up my use of the quote tags.

Edited February 28, 2005 by eugimon

[Gui]

So just because they sell you crap at a certain price that there's nothing wrong with paying it?

Why not?...People have been buying $100,000+ Ferraris and Lambos for decades now...its not like those cars cost that much to make...hell you could duplicate the performance with a modded Mustang or Camaro, and still spend less then $30k...but no one has been bitching that Ferrari has been inflateing prices...

That's because a Ferrari is the product of a craftsman and not an industry, therefore it is of higher quality than the usual average serially-produced car, hence its price

[MSW]

That's because a Ferrari is the product of a craftsman and not an industry, therefore it is of higher quality than the usual average serially-produced car, hence its price

Well Ferrari is owned by Fiat, one of the giants in the industry...anyway...

Ferrari has higher quality? In what way? Can the engine go 200,000+ miles before needing a tune up? Is it impossable for a 4 year old kid to rip open the seams in the seats? are the wields holding the frame together that much stronger? The electrical system that much better? is the paint chip proof?

Naw, when you buy a hugely expensive Ferrari, you are paying for a name brand. you are paying to own a part of the Ferrari history, the legend...Ferrari engines still break down, the seats can rip, the electrical system catch fire, the paint can chip and peel...and if treated as a typical $15k garden variety mass produced car, you can bet the Ferrari wouldn't last any longer...But owners typicaly pamper them (afterall they cost a lot of money) which in turn fosters the illusion of higher quality.

And feel free to continue to not address any of my points... go look at census data go and actually see if the middle class is growing or shrinking. see if wages in the US have kept up with inflation.

which points?

The middleclass is shrinking, and this is due to CD/DVD priceing? That the entertainment industry always fears change? That the RIAA and MPAA are acting rash in trying to protect thier intrests? Because the graphic artist, whom designed the CD cover layout, doesn't make much money...niether should the distributors, and the retailors?

[MSW]

Or maybe its these points:

As far as pricing goes...

1. Recent class action lawsuit, RIAA lost.. they HAVE been ripping customers off.

As I noted before, the retail markup on books is the same as CD/DVDs...the markup on most consumer products is the same (prove otherwise). Those most opposed to reduced CD/DVD prices are retailers, especialy the smaller specialty ones.

The end result is that this court decision will help strengthen the big retailers like Wal-Mart because the reduced retail prices will drive the smaller specialty retailers out of buisness...Its a big win for big buisness, the consumer gets hurt in that they will have a vastly reduced range of CD/DVD choices, smaller lesser known artists get hurt in that they will loose the revenue stream the specialty shops provided.

And its not like the courts have a history of always makeing correct judgements (Dread-Scott is a prime example)...Yeah its a win for consumer greed, but not exactly a win for the average wage-slave joe.

2. Universal was the company that first introduced the pricing tier for DVDs in a bid to stay competetive... not as a means of trying to deliver content to consumers in a any sort of fair or meaningful way.

That makes little sense...in order to be competetive Universal still had to deliver content in a way consumers found to be a fair value...you make it sound like they are selling blank DVDs...Or that consumers had no choice in the matter...It's not like the old DivX crap that was sold through retailers like Circut City that George Lucas and company supported failed because the buisness model didn't make money

3. Discount bins at Walmart don't count.

Actually they do count! The CD/DVD producer and distributer already made thier money...its the retailer that bites the bullet on those discount bins

[mikeszekely]

Now I don't think a Britney Spears CD is worth $20, but I don't have an issue with her selling them for that much...but a CD from a favorite band (say http://www.tubring.com/ <- a very awsome experimental band!), to me can be worth $30 or even more...

I don't have a problem with Jive Records charging $20 for a Britney Spears CD, either... but I don't want to hear them bitching that they're not making the kind of profits they want because the fans aren't buying enough copies or because some kid downloaded "Toxic" (because that was the only song out of lord knows how many singles that they liked) instead of wasting $20 for the album. Again, higher prices do not translate to more profits. If five people are willing to pay $20 for a CD, and 10 people are willing to pay $15, you're going to make more money selling the CD for $15.

And that's still ignoring the fact that most record companies are flooding the market. Back in the 70's, you knew who most of the major artists were, and they'd be a year or two between albums. Today, as little as nine months go by between albums, and for every one mildly successful artist, you have a dozen mass produced clones.

And while we're plugging our favorite lesser-known groups, do check out The Juliana Theory.

[Stamen0083]

Ferrari has higher quality? In what way? Can the engine go 200,000+ miles before needing a tune up? Is it impossable for a 4 year old kid to rip open the seams in the seats? are the wields holding the frame together that much stronger? The electrical system that much better? is the paint chip proof?

Ferraris are faster, more powerful than typical cars. They are meant for racing, not for daily driving. Hundreds of hours go into wind tunnel testing to ensure the best aerodynamics for a body design. The Enzo is made from mostly carbon fiber for the body, which, as I understand it, is a hell of a lot more expensive and difficult to work with material than sheet metal, and the end result is lighter shell.

Not to mention the hours went into designing, testing, tuning the engine, suspension, and everything relevant to performance.

If I had a Ferrari, I would make sure no four year-old ever gets near it.

And supposedly, the machine is handcrafted rather than mass produced. Since more people are involved, the price of production is higher.

Even though Ferrari is owned by Fiat, Fiat does nothing more than give them a place to put their factory, so to speak. Fiat has nothing to do with construction of the car.

You speak of a Ferrari, a race car, which has always been Enzo Ferrari's vision, not a symbol of wealth, as though it was a Honda Civic. You sure as hell can't compare an F1 racer to a daily car. You can't compare Ferrari (and Lamborghini, for that matter) to daily cars either.

[MSW]

Ferrari has higher quality? In what way? Can the engine go 200,000+ miles before needing a tune up? Is it impossable for a 4 year old kid to rip open the seams in the seats? are the wields holding the frame together that much stronger? The electrical system that much better? is the paint chip proof?

Ferraris are faster, more powerful than typical cars. They are meant for racing, not for daily driving. Hundreds of hours go into wind tunnel testing to ensure the best aerodynamics for a body design. The Enzo is made from mostly carbon fiber for the body, which, as I understand it, is a hell of a lot more expensive and difficult to work with material than sheet metal, and the end result is lighter shell.

Not to mention the hours went into designing, testing, tuning the engine, suspension, and everything relevant to performance.

If I had a Ferrari, I would make sure no four year-old ever gets near it.

And supposedly, the machine is handcrafted rather than mass produced. Since more people are involved, the price of production is higher.

Even though Ferrari is owned by Fiat, Fiat does nothing more than give them a place to put their factory, so to speak. Fiat has nothing to do with construction of the car.

You speak of a Ferrari, a race car, which has always been Enzo Ferrari's vision, not a symbol of wealth, as though it was a Honda Civic. You sure as hell can't compare an F1 racer to a daily car. You can't compare Ferrari (and Lamborghini, for that matter) to daily cars either.

Is the performance of a Ferrari worth that much more over the cost of a Corvette, Mustang, Ford Focus?

If you know anything about cars, you should damn well know that something as common as a modified Mustang can perform just as well for far less then the price of a Ferrari...Heck, for less then $30,000 (includeing the perchase price) you can make a GSXR-1300 outperform a stock Enzo in ALL catagories...even insurance would be cheaper, not to mention the bike could do it all and still get 35+ miles per gallon.

If you want performance, there are far cheaper solutions out there...but one doesn't buy a Ferrari for performance alone...admit it or not, Ferrari's street division makes "status" cars...and no, not a one of them is a race car...even the Enzo and F-40 are modified from showroom stock for track duity.

Yeah, it costs Ferrari quite a bit more to make an Enzo then it does Ford to make a Mustang...but there is in the least a sizeable 10 to 20 times production cost mark-up on both, and most likely more in Ferrari's street cars...Which was the point to begin with...Otherwise Ferrari simply could not stay in buisness investing so much into both thier raceing and street car divisions

Edited March 1, 2005 by MSW

[Stamen0083]

Is the performance of a Ferrari worth that much more over the cost of a Corvette, Mustang, Ford Focus?

Yes.

If you know anything about cars, you should damn well know that something as common as a modified Mustang can perform just as well for far less then the price of a Ferrari...Heck, for less then $30,000 (includeing the perchase price) you can make a GSXR-1300 outperform a stock Enzo in ALL catagories...even insurance would be cheaper, not to mention the bike could do it all and still get 35+ miles per gallon.

Yeah, well, you still have to modify those cars, don't you? With Ferrari, you get the performance from stock.

If you want performance, there are far cheaper solutions out there...but one doesn't buy a Ferrari for performance alone...admit it or not, Ferrari's street division makes "status" cars...and no, not a one of them is a race car...even the Enzo and F-40 are modified from showroom stock for track duity.

No, you're right. If I were to purchase a Ferrari, it is not because of performance reasons. I would buy it for the way it looks. Unless you do extensive modifications to a car, you don't get the look, the feel, the performance of a Ferrari.

And showroom stock cars, as you put it, were meant for street driving, so they would be toned down. Putting them on the track would require that they be brought up to standard.

In anycase, the whole pricing structure of Ferrari is a case in point: is it worth the money for a Ferrari? For most people, hell yeah. If there's a little prestige the car carries with it, it's just icing on the cake.

[Gui]

Like Stamen0083 said, Ferrari is prestige but you don't get prestige in making cheap products. Ferrari cars are of better quaklity than the average mass-produced cars because of all the reasons Stamen said and some others (one of them is that Ferraris are built in something like 3 to 4 years for one unit instead of 5... minutes for the average industrial car). Also the hand-crafted product is always of better quality than the industrial one, for the simple and good reason that there's actually no machines into any industry which can pretend to the same proficiency than the human hand: it's a fact, not an opinion...

This prestige drives into some obligations though. For example, the 'normal' Ferrari color is red: if you want your car of another color (such as yellow, black or white, there's not a lot of options...) you have to pay several hundreds of thousands bucks more. On the another hand, and because it is of very high quality, the slightest defective thing into your Ferrari will be replaced for free, even if it's the one which costs the most. Finally, because it is hand-crafted, the response of the machine to the inputs of its pilot are far better than any other mass-produced car, considerably reducing the risks of accidents

Ferrari cars are how all cars should be but aren't because of profits concerns instead of health and social progress: basically the main reasons why we get sh!tty music and movies, because they're cheaper to produce and therefore allow to make more money because they'll still be sold at the same price than other, better products which will not benefit of a comparable exposure and then will not sell as much...

It's all a matter of marketing, advertising, manipulation and mass credulity exploitation. Quality costs far too much to interest majors, otherwise their boss will not be able to finance their new giant pool into their Xth secondary residence in Hawaï...

[MSW]

Gui - Ferrari is a buisness, same as EMI, Unviersal, Chevrolet...they arn't a chearety organization dedicated to giveing away performance cars for the masses.

Also the hand-crafted product is always of better quality than the industrial one, for the simple and good reason that there's actually no machines into any industry which can pretend to the same proficiency than the human hand: it's a fact, not an opinion...

No, that very much is an opinion...a fully hand restored antique car is often worth less then a same condition original...value is subjective, period.

I can hop on down to my local Suzuki dealership and buy a brand new $13,000 showroom stock GSXR-1300 that can beat an Enzo in all performance catagories except top speed...a much better value in my opinion...that the bike requires less maintence, won't breakdown as often, is more reliable, gets better gas mileage, and I can let my 4 year old nephew sit up in the seat pretending to ride without fear he will break something...that is better quality in my opinion.

On the another hand, and because it is of very high quality, the slightest defective thing into your Ferrari will be replaced for free, even if it's the one which costs the most.

Its called a warranty...Everybody else has them too.

[Gui]

Gui - Ferrari is a buisness, same as EMI, Unviersal, Chevrolet...they arn't a chearety organization dedicated to giveing away performance cars for the masses.

Indeed, and their product is costly because it deserves it

Also the hand-crafted product is always of better quality than the industrial one, for the simple and good reason that there's actually no machines into any industry which can pretend to the same proficiency than the human hand: it's a fact, not an opinion...

No, that very much is an opinion...a fully hand restored antique car is often worth less then a same condition original...value is subjective, period.

Yes, but quality is not

I can hop on down to my local Suzuki dealership and buy a brand new $13,000 showroom stock GSXR-1300 that can beat an Enzo in all performance catagories except top speed...a much better value in my opinion...that the bike requires less maintence, won't breakdown as often, is more reliable, gets better gas mileage, and I can let my 4 year old nephew sit up in the seat pretending to ride without fear he will break something...that is better quality in my opinion.

It'll still be a lowest quality than the average Ferrari, for obvious reasons

On the another hand, and because it is of very high quality, the slightest defective thing into your Ferrari will be replaced for free, even if it's the one which costs the most.

Its called a warranty...Everybody else has them too.

Not for life

Edit: bastardized quoting...

Edited March 2, 2005 by Gui

[MSW]

GUI -

Ferrari builds some 4,000 cars a year...thats about one every half hour per 8 hour work day when you factor out weekends...That rate of production would require at least 16,000 workers if it took 4 years for a single person to hand build each car. That isn't possable with the 2,500 some workers Ferrari employes to build cars.

Ferrari's standard warranty even on the Enzo is 24 months, not for life...Otherwise, if it were, there are owners of older 308, 328, Tesarossa, 365 Daytonas, Dinos, even going back to the original tesarossa engined GT cars just itching to take advantage of such a life long warranty.

Further, an oil change on the Enzo costs some $730 and must be performed at an authorized Ferrari dealer, with Ferrari certified techs...else the warranty is void...and this with off the shelf mass production Fram filters and Shell engine oil

And for under $100,000 you can buy a Z06 Corvette that outperforms many Ferrari models that cost more, even has a better standard warranty to.

higer price != higher quality

Edited March 2, 2005 by MSW

[Gui]

Sources?

[MSW]

Sources?

Nothing I stated is hard to find. Much of it comes from Ferrari websites. Google is your friend - use it!

But you prolly won't anyway...so check this out:

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/0404_ferrarifactory/

a nice little photo tour of the Ferrari factory...not a radical departure from typical Honda, Toyota, even GM factories...the tour even shows the Enzo assembly line...and *gasp!* a robot used for quality insurance!

And here is some standard warranty info:

http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=...y/warranty.tmpl

2 years, unlimited miles...like a typical Ferrari owner would put 5,000 or more miles on the car per year anyway

Wanna fix a Ferrari yourself...better get the shop manuals:

http://www.ferraritechinfo.com/

from the cost alone, you would expect them to be printed on carbonfiber

[Gui]

Every experienced internaut knows that Google is my friend until a certain point: for infos about Ferrari, I check the official Ferrari website... which gives no infos as the ones you stated in your post (except one: the number of cars produced in 2004, which is 1350 and represents a production increase of about 12%...)

The warranty thing doesn't even precise what sort of models these numbers apply to

And the robot you talked about simply serves to 'checks the dimensions of the body at 893 points' (pic #10) to take the exact word of this document. The same document which says for pictures #6 that 'The Ferrari Enzo has a special production line, behind which is the area where seats and pedals are custom-fit to owner's specifications' and for #9 that 'The dimensions of the doors are hand-checked'

Don't get your point with the shop manuals link: all manufacturers sell separate components...

But whatever, I've more important things to do than discussing about irrelevant details concerning Ferrari cars when they're obviously not the main point of this thread, this was just an example to support my opinion and it seems you perfectly illustrated this last one by yourself with this:

And for under $100,000 you can buy a Z06 Corvette that outperforms many Ferrari models that cost more, even has a better standard warranty to.

higer price != higher quality

Interesting conclusion: you say the Corvette is cheaper than most Ferrari but has better performances, then you still affirm that 'higer price != higher quality'

Contradiction?

[Nightbat]

this is a bit weird:

You guys are comparing a Ferrari to a Ford???

But when I'm fan of say, U2,... and I don't wish to pay €20 for their CD

Does this mean I have to buy "Various Artists - Compilation" for €15?

This would mean: Since I can't afford the ferrari, I'm buying a ford?

No it means I'm a U2 fan and can't afford their CD so I DON'T buy it

Ferrari isn't getting my money, period.

doesn't matter how much quality they use and options they install (Deluxe booklet,

Enhanced CD features) It's still too expensive

and all the while Ford isn't getting my money either since I'm CERTAINLY not a fan of them

You can't compare music/artists, it's pure fanbased

I never bought a CD from artist A because it was cheaper than artist B

I have waited for artist B's cd to drop in price to buy it

Take illegal downloading and copying out of the equation and the solution stays the

same: People aren't buying CD's because they can't afford them

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I never bought a CD from artist A because it was cheaper than artist B

I have waited for artist B's cd to drop in price to buy it

But that's the problem: Art is subjective. You are a fanatic of artist B, have a price range in mind for how much it is worth (TO YOU) but so long as thier are people out there who earn more money, are less budget conscious, don't care about value, and who have enough money to buy artist B and Artist A while still having change left to buy some unknown artists (because they are just such music fans in general) prices won't go down because greedy fat cats don't want the smaller guys competing against them if they actually DID decide to lower prices.

In the game industry: Look at the way nintendo purposely kept the cartridge medium for so long because it was making more profit for them. By doing it on purpose (keep prices high) it meant they could control and charge however much they wanted to third parties who had to pay the high costs of the cartridges to make games on nintendo's game systems, which then had the effect of limiting what they could do with thier games so they wouldn't look better than Nintendo's own inhouse-produced games. Now until sony (thier competitors)came along to cut costs, (when they brought out the playstation 1 which offered a cd medium for third party developers to exploit) they (nintendo) would never have decided to leave thier outdated cart medium for a less profitable one (ie cd medium. "Profitable" in terms of them having all the control).

Competition brings lower prices and progress. (to us and to the artists; the workhorses who produce the work and deserve the most of your money, but who are at the mercy of the greed of the person/people who took the risk investing in them)

By eliminating any competition, they can maintain thier grasp of the entertainment industry and limit your (consumer) choices of whether to buy the product at the price they deem most profitiable to them. They are thinking in terms of total domination of choices. (so long as people are willing to buy thier stuff at whatever prices they create by them promoting it, they can ignore giving too much power to other artists who may compete with what they invested in. You don't want artist A getting in the way of the profits of artist B when you own both of them. You just want everyone to be forced to buy artist A because you just so happen to have invested more money into promoting Artist A.

What some are arguing is that they could make even more profit if the prices were lowered, but I say this risks letting thier competition (small guys) getting too much control and so they plot daily like the evil Mr burns on how best to slow everything down (like when new technologies progress that offer to compete and take away thier controls ie napster) so they are in the best position to keep control under them.

When sony brought out the playstation 1 for example this meant third parties had more control and games had more capacity at cheaper price to work with, leading to better better games due to superior medium. No longer did nintendo have control and could just demand any ridiculous asking price to third parties for carts (I think they had to buy the carts off them and any unsold stock the developers ate) because now that sony was here there was a better alternative.

So the moral is fat cats probably are aware they might be able to make more overall profit if they reduce prices but they prefer to have absolute control over everything and keep competitors (that is anyone who thinks they can make a profit without them getting a large cut) poor and unable to knock them off the top of the ladder/pyramid.

IT worth noting that we are at the point in the game industry where all the big software companies have bought out the smaller ones and some day when all of the talent is owned under a single roof, prices will start to rise and quality may go down because they have zero incentive to put effort into the qualityof something when they have the monopoly on the market all to themselves and can ignore complaints from the few people who care about value and of being ripped off. As long as there are still masses of sheep ready to give up thier cash, those few shouldn't matter to them as they (the complainers) increasingly become a minority group whose profits are neglible compared to the programmed masses who have the well-promoted music shoved down thier throats 24/7 instead of those struggling, (sometimes much more talented) unknown artists.

I've noticed that as the buying power of younger generations increases, it causes a flood of stuff older people think of as crappy, and people are forced to ask themselves why stuff like that sells so well. I'll tell you: its because the younger generation has no other choices (again the same poo is promoted day and night) and through the limit of choice, sales of a product is streamlined making it seem as if only what they promoted was any good or worth the money to buy because it just so happens to be selling well after they promoted it heavily.(as opposed to the people choosing it from underground word of mouth by taking the risk on unknown bands/artists.)

By limiting what consumers can see and choose, they can ensure thier power stays high and profits mainly go to them. That's why if you really love a piece of art don't be a tightass and instead fork up the money because they will need all the support they can get, to take on the giants and promote themselves. (that is until they get too famous and snub thier dedicated loyal fanbase and become greedy themselves. Metallica and thier attitude towards napster for eg All the established artists who have the most to lose are the ones most scared of change.)

It's all about power and ensuring it stays the way it is and nothing changes that might upset thier powerbase such that it will cost them more time, effort and risk to profit. If things stay the same they are happy, because they are lazy and well fed.

Edited March 5, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[MSW]

(except one: the number of cars produced in 2004, which is 1350 and represents a production increase of about 12%...)

You got those figures from the Ferrari North American website. Read it AGAIN! That is how many cars Ferrari shipped to and sold ONLY in America...not the whole world

Interesting conclusion: you say the Corvette is cheaper than most Ferrari but has better performances, then you still affirm that 'higer price != higher quality'

Contradiction?

Hardly...

"higher price != higher quality" means "higher price NOT EQUAL TO higher quality".

The "!=" is a conditional operator that comes from the C/C++ computer programing language. Obviously means "NOT EQUAL TO"...sorry for the confusion, I forget sometimes that not everyone is familure with computer programing languages, or the shorthand use of them.

[MSW]

Take illegal downloading and copying out of the equation and the solution stays the

same: People aren't buying CD's because they can't afford them

But they can afford $120+ Nike shoes and designer clothes, $50 video games, cell phones, SUV car payments, cable, satellite and TIVO TV packages, even Yamato toys...If they don't want a CD... fine...but if they can afford any of that stuff...they sure as hell can afford a CD they want.

Its called money management, setting priorities, goals...a skill that seems to be vanishing as evidenced by the growth rate of personnel debt...

Simply put, if you haven't the willpower, money management skills, foresight to save enough money to buy a CD you really want. Then you have far bigger problems to deal with then whineing about CD prices.

[MSW]

What some are arguing is that they could make even more profit if the prices were lowered, but I say this risks letting thier competition (small guys) getting too much control

The small guys (indie record labels) can't compete right now with the prices the big guys (EMI, etc) sell thier CDs at...the small guys simply haven't the resources the big guys have for high volume cost efficent CD releases, and thus it costs the small guys more per CD then the big guys...further, the small guys haven't got the market penetration the big guys have, and thier wares are sold through other small guys (mom and pop retail stores)...the big guys lowering thier prices further hurts the small guys, and helps the big guys gain more dominace. this is because the small retail shops wont see as much money per sale of the big guys CDs (which still accounts for about half the smaller retailers sales)...this in turn drives them out of buisness, further reduceing outlets for the small indie record labels...which of course reduces competition, allowing the big guys to have more control over the market.

Now with the internet the small guys still can reach new fans...however the price disparity still remains...if the fans, used to paying $10 for a CD from the big guys, arn't willing to pay $25 for the small guys CD and thus would rather rip it...well the small guys get hurt again, further empowering the big guys.

But, as video games were brought into this (and tying back into the Ferrari discussion). consumers generaly seem to feel that if it costs more it must be worth more...do some research into shareware game development...most successful developers will tell you to charge at least $15 for a game you develop...Yeah so you develop a great little Pac-Man clone or some such, and decide to sell it for $5...the successful shareware developers will tell you, from thier experience, to charge more...yeah if its too expensive, people won't buy it...but if the price seems too cheap, is it really worth the customers time to dig out thier credit card and wade through the ordering process...

Now I don't hate Ferrari...heck if given an oppertunity I would own a 308GTS Quatrovalve (but that is largely because its the only Ferrari I like, that I could now afford...if only the amount and costs of mainance were lower ...timeing belts replaced every 30k at a cost of $3k ) nor do I even think they are ripping people off...but I really don't think thier cars are worth as much as people are buying them for...

[Gui]

Interesting conclusion: you say the Corvette is cheaper than most Ferrari but has better performances, then you still affirm that 'higer price != higher quality'

Contradiction?

Hardly...

"higher price != higher quality" means "higher price NOT EQUAL TO higher quality".

The "!=" is a conditional operator that comes from the C/C++ computer programing language. Obviously means "NOT EQUAL TO"...sorry for the confusion, I forget sometimes that not everyone is familure with computer programing languages, or the shorthand use of them.

L.O.L.!!!

[Nightbat]

Take illegal downloading and copying out of the equation and the solution stays the

same: People aren't buying CD's because they can't afford them

But they can afford $120+ Nike shoes and designer clothes, $50 video games, cell phones, SUV car payments, cable, satellite and TIVO TV packages, even Yamato toys...If they don't want a CD... fine...but if they can afford any of that stuff...they sure as hell can afford a CD they want.

Its called money management, setting priorities, goals...a skill that seems to be vanishing as evidenced by the growth rate of personnel debt...

Simply put, if you haven't the willpower, money management skills, foresight to save enough money to buy a CD you really want. Then you have far bigger problems to deal with then whineing about CD prices.

So, you think everyone can buy all that stuff you mentioned?

You think everyone is a rich kid, like us on MW?

Your comment is short-sighted to say the least

On another note:

The growth of personal debt is increasing because producers

are holding a steak in front of the consumers faces

Tickle their desires the right way and long enough and people

would almost swear they need it to survive and would go through great troubles

to obtain it

and even poor people would want some comfort and luxury in their life

That's where the banks are eagerly circling around like vultures

telling those that can't have it can have it by just

signing up for a cheap loan

End note:

In the end of the discussion I cannot say your wrong

Copyright laws are pretty much the same all over the world and quite easy to understand

But the Multimedialabels are shifting the blame purely on Filesharing, while it's mostly

people not buying the product since they think it's too expensive

and if the labels continue with that attitude, I have no problem seeing them fall

flat on their face

They're digging their own grave, only in their arrogance they won't accept that

[MSW]

So, you think everyone can buy all that stuff you mentioned?

You think everyone is a rich kid, like us on MW?

Of course not! I'm far, far, FAR from rich...but, I could afford all those things with the proper planning, patience, and will power to stick to a budget...There is NO reason ANYONE else can't do the same.

On another note:

The growth of personal debt is increasing because producers

are holding a steak in front of the consumers faces

Tickle their desires the right way and long enough and people

would almost swear they need it to survive and would go through great troubles

to obtain it

and even poor people would want some comfort and luxury in their life

That's where the banks are eagerly circling around like vultures

telling those that can't have it can have it by just

signing up for a cheap loan

So its the producers and bankers fault? they are to blame? even the poor people just can't help themselves, they have no self control? And like animals, they can't possably be expected to control thier impulses?

That is one of the most insulting things I've ever heard!

Its like saying "its okay for a guy to rape a woman, whom is dressed or acts in such a way as to arouse him. Because, afterall, he can't be expected to control his impulses, and thus the woman is to blame"...Now, is that something you agree with? Cause I certainly don't!

[sabretooth]

there is little point to keep up this tyrade of price equals quality, record labels are not the blame it's what anybody would call shitty business practices. file sharing is not the devil

-tower records is-

fords are great for 4 year old nephew transit vehicles

250,000 $ cars pretty much are not for day care wagons, they are bragging and booty rights

weak ass c++ trivia is silly and not relavant to the discourse , and makes someone look a little dorky

with this in mind i would like to say that my geo metro kicks your porches ass on mileage and street cred

Edited March 6, 2005 by sabretooth

[mikeszekely]

Take illegal downloading and copying out of the equation and the solution stays the

same: People aren't buying CD's because they can't afford them

But they can afford $120+ Nike shoes and designer clothes, $50 video games, cell phones, SUV car payments, cable, satellite and TIVO TV packages, even Yamato toys...If they don't want a CD... fine...but if they can afford any of that stuff...they sure as hell can afford a CD they want.

Its called money management, setting priorities, goals...a skill that seems to be vanishing as evidenced by the growth rate of personnel debt...

Simply put, if you haven't the willpower, money management skills, foresight to save enough money to buy a CD you really want. Then you have far bigger problems to deal with then whineing about CD prices.

The reason I think everyone's arguing your points, MSW, is that your arguments seem to come down to the price is what it is, no use complaining, and that we should either not buy the product in question or save up, budget, then bend over and take it quietly.

The issue isn't about buying or not buying. The issue is about the record companies selling mass-produced teeny-pop at premium prices, then blaming their customers for not generating the kind of sales they wanted instead of understanding that lower prices can mean higher profits.

I, for one, learned about supply in demand in business class. But I sure as hell don't recall anything about blaming (and possibly suing) customers for poor sales as a way to artificially inflate the demand for a shoddy product.

[Nightbat]

So, you think everyone can buy all that stuff you mentioned?

You think everyone is a rich kid, like us on MW?

Of course not! I'm far, far, FAR from rich...but, I could afford all those things with the proper planning, patience, and will power to stick to a budget...There is NO reason ANYONE else can't do the same.

No not EVERYONE can!

there are 8 million privatly sold computers in my country

there are 16 million inhabitants

I happen to own 4 computers, which means that not even 50% of the population

has a computer

Just because I have a 4 course meal on the table doesn't mean there aren't people

that can't afford a cracker

Open you eyes, not everyone is in the same position as you!

maybe some have more patience, better money skills and better planning than you

but since they don't have a dime they simply cannot begin to do that

On another note:

The growth of personal debt is increasing because producers

are holding a steak in front of the consumers faces

Tickle their desires the right way and long enough and people

would almost swear they need it to survive and would go through great troubles

to obtain it

and even poor people would want some comfort and luxury in their life

That's where the banks are eagerly circling around like vultures

telling those that can't have it can have it by just

signing up for a cheap loan

So its the producers and bankers fault? they are to blame? even the poor people just can't help themselves, they have no self control? And like animals, they can't possably be expected to control thier impulses?

That is one of the most insulting things I've ever heard!

Well, live with it!

People are sheep, proven by 1000's of psychologists and psychiatrists

over the past 100 years

We have something called World War 2 to prove that: Poor people being held a

steak infront of their eyes and because of that did some of the most horrible

crimes humanity has ever seen

Not only that, but if you look what's been discussed: Popmusic is another GREAT

example being MUSIC FOR THE MASSES

How could it possibly be that SO MANY people like the same music?

Its like saying "its okay for a guy to rape a woman, whom is dressed or acts in such a way as to arouse him. Because, afterall, he can't be expected to control his impulses, and thus the woman is to blame"...Now, is that something you agree with? Cause I certainly don't!

The irony in that statement is that rape does happen with that reason

difference is that it isn't promoted as something that you should do

But are you trying to say that filesharing is just as bad as rape?

Edited March 6, 2005 by Nightbat®

[MSW]

there are 8 million privatly sold computers in my country

there are 16 million inhabitants

I happen to own 4 computers, which means that not even 50% of the population

has a computer

Ah, so that absolutely must mean the other 50+% can't afford a computer?

Now, it prolly won't come as a shock to you that most Americans have some form of cable TV service...These same folks also tend to bitch and moan alot about "57+ channels and nothing on"...sad really, they also complain about paying upwards of $50 a month for something they find little value in...I suppose it never occurs to them that they can live without such TV service.

I haven't had cable TV in nearly a decade, I don't even want it...And the money I save from that alone allows me to have other luxuries like music CDs that I couldn't afford otherwise. I willingly gave up one luxury to have another...No reason why anyone else can't either.

Just because you want a computer, doesn't mean the rest of your countrymen want one too.

and sense you dodged it the first time:

Its like saying "its okay for a guy to rape a woman, whom is dressed or acts in such a way as to arouse him. Because, afterall, he can't be expected to control his impulses, and thus the woman is to blame"...Now, is that something you agree with? Cause I certainly don't!

Yeah, rapeist often give that "woman asked for it" reason for thier crimes...because it happens, does it make it right?

But are you trying to say that filesharing is just as bad as rape?

Of course not.

Ironicly, some consumers say they feel "raped" by record companies whom charge $20 for a CD that costs $1 to make...Are you trying to say you feel the same?

and, if so, then do you feel the same when buying a book? a computer game? food? clothing? toy?...nearly every product available through retail is sold to the consumer at a mark up of 10 to 30 times over manufactureing costs...this is a fact, not opinion (again, please prove otherwise).

[Jemstone]

MSW, few quick questions. Your points are all valid but I'm going to use the first Robotech DVDs as an example. The legacy box sets had an MSRP of $44.99 for the not remastered VHS dumps onto DVD with a mediocre extras disc (unless you wanted the Sentinels). Would you have paid the $44.99 for that if it was the only source to get those episodes (throw Animeigo and ADV out the window). Do you think that set of discs was worth the $44.99? If not what i the alternate you would do (again no Animeigo or ADV remastered releases).

Thanks.