Why did movie rental streaming prices increase?

[Kazaam]

It's been close to a year since I last rented a movie from Vudu. But, if my memory serves me correctly, most new releases would rent for $3.99 SD, $4.99 HD, and $5.99 HDX. But recently I was looking around and realized that a significant number of new releases were renting for a dollar higher than before. So even the SD version was a whopping $4.99; HD for $5.99, etc.

I found simiilar price hikes at CinemaNow, Amazon, and Google Play. (Not every new release was increased, but some were.)

Perhaps I was naive in thinking prices would eventually go down slightly. But to go up? I was just getting comfortable with the idea of renting an HD stream for $4.99. (Barely comfortable.) Not that my meager patronage was keeping these places in business, I'll admit. But, in my defense, it's probably been six months since I last rented anything at all---be it from them or from competitor RedBox. I just haven't rented anything much this past year.

 

[Haywood]

$6.99 for a rental is highway robbery. At that price, I'll vote my disdain with my wallet and use Red Box or a Torrent.

 

[Kazaam]

Yeah... I can't do $6.99. Granted, my TV is just 720p so I have little incentive to do so.

On the somewhat positive side, it appears that SOME rentals at Vudu aren't charging a premium to go from HD to HDX; for instance, Tina Fey's "Admission" is $5.99 for HD and also the same $5.99 for HDX. On the other hand, some films DO have a premium for HDX; for instance, Stallone's "Bullet To The Head" starts at $5.99 for HD and goes up to $6.99 for HDX.

I would say at $6.99 that it'd be tempting to just buy a Blu-Ray disc. But then I looked and it appears the only BD version being sold is an expensive $25.00 combo pack that includes BD+DVD+Ultraviolet. Didn't find just a regular BD-only version online at Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, or Target. Not yet, anyway. Maybe they'll release one after enough people rent it at $6.99.

 

[Haywood]

Yeah... I can't do $6.99. Granted, my TV is just 720p so I have little incentive to do so.

On the somewhat positive side, it appears that SOME rentals at Vudu aren't charging a premium to go from HD to HDX; for instance, Tina Fey's "Admission" is $5.99 for HD and also the same $5.99 for HDX. On the other hand, some films DO have a premium for HDX; for instance, Stallone's "Bullet To The Head" starts at $5.99 for HD and goes up to $6.99 for HDX.

I would say at $6.99 that it'd be tempting to just buy a Blu-Ray disc. But then I looked and it appears the only BD version being sold is an expensive $25.00 combo pack that includes BD+DVD+Ultraviolet. Didn't find just a regular BD-only version online at Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, or Target. Not yet, anyway. Maybe they'll release one after enough people rent it at $6.99.

I wasn't about to drop that kind of cheddar on a Blu-Ray without seeing the movie and I sure as hell wasn't going to spend $7 on a rental, so I snagged it off a torrent. I'm glad I did, because it wasn't all that great.

 

[CMonster]

^And now you know why the cost of streaming is increasing...

 

[Haywood]

^And now you know why the cost of streaming is increasing...

Absolutely not. It is simple market economics. If not enough people use the service, they have to lower the price. Right now, the price is too high. If enough people feel the same way and do not use the service, the price will come down. I legally own over a hundred UltraViolet movies and have subscriptions to Neflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime. I also own nearly 200 Blu-Ray disc and somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 DVDs. I'm not opposed to paying for content. I spend thousands of dollars paying for content. What I'm opposed to is getting bent over.

 

[mcad64]

^And now you know why the cost of streaming is increasing...

Absolutely not. It is simple market economics. If not enough people use the service, they have to lower the price. Right now, the price is too high. If enough people feel the same way and do not use the service, the price will come down. I legally own over a hundred UltraViolet movies and have subscriptions to Neflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime. I also own nearly 200 Blu-Ray disc and somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 DVDs. I'm not opposed to paying for content. I spend thousands of dollars paying for content. What I'm opposed to is getting bent over.

I've never understood that logic. You don't own it. You downloaded it illegally. What's the difference between using a torrent site and trying to walk out of Best Buy with a bluray tucked under your coat?

 

[CMonster]

^Once Haywood explained that he pays for all those streaming services and he spends a lot on physical content, I'm more forgiving. He has mentioned torrents quite a bit lately thus my call-out. If its more the exception than the rule then I can see where it might be similar to a friend loaning you a cd or DVD...

 

[Towen7]

I'm in the minority, I know. But justifying stealing product X by saying you paid for product Y is intellectually dishonest.

We've been over this before and we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll be quiet now.

 

[CMonster]

^For the most part I agree with you, Tom, but I'm willing to forgive the occasional borrowing/loaning of a book, movie, or album. Torrents bother me more because of the intent of the suppliers and most users.

 

[Haywood]

^And now you know why the cost of streaming is increasing...

Absolutely not. It is simple market economics. If not enough people use the service, they have to lower the price. Right now, the price is too high. If enough people feel the same way and do not use the service, the price will come down. I legally own over a hundred UltraViolet movies and have subscriptions to Neflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime. I also own nearly 200 Blu-Ray disc and somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 DVDs. I'm not opposed to paying for content. I spend thousands of dollars paying for content. What I'm opposed to is getting bent over.

I've never understood that logic. You don't own it. You downloaded it illegally. What's the difference between using a torrent site and trying to walk out of Best Buy with a bluray tucked under your coat?

What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and recording it off cable? What is the difference between downloading it off a torrent and borrowing it from a library of a friend? There is no difference. "Intellectual property" is not property at all. Copying is not stealing. When you steal someone, you deprive them of the use of the thing. Copying does not do that. It only deprives someone of the potential for revenue, not even real revenue. It is not even morally similar to stealing.

 

[Haywood]

^For the most part I agree with you, Tom, but I'm willing to forgive the occasional borrowing/loaning of a book, movie, or album. Torrents bother me more because of the intent of the suppliers and most users.

I buy five or six movies for every one that I download and many of the movies I have downloaded are movies that I already own in a different format. I mainly download movies because I'm either too lazy to rip my own or I want to see if a movie is any good or not before deciding whether or not I want to buy it. This is functionally no different than borrowing a movie from the library and I refuse to feel guilty about it.

 

[hawk52]

Don't normally pitch in, but... Well I want that jacket, but I will be dammed, I'm not paying $290. I'll lift it. Any difference in illegal download. Not IMO. Theft is theft. If you don't want to pay the price, walk away. I'm not saying the price is not a rip off. That doesn't justify theft. As stated demand will dictate price. Don't buy, demand goes down and the the price will too. Don't you just love capitalism.

 

[Haywood]

^For the most part I agree with you, Tom, but I'm willing to forgive the occasional borrowing/loaning of a book, movie, or album. Torrents bother me more because of the intent of the suppliers and most users.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with borrowing or loaning books, movies or anything else. If there is something wrong with it, then it is also wrong to buy or sell used books, DVDs or CDs. This is the problem with "intellectual property." It isn't real property.

 

[Haywood]

Don't normally pitch in, but... Well I want that jacket, but I will be dammed, I'm not paying $290. I'll lift it. Any difference in illegal download. Not IMO. Theft is theft. If you don't want to pay the price, walk away. I'm not saying the price is not a rip off. That doesn't justify theft. As stated demand will dictate price. Don't buy, demand goes down and the the price will too. Don't you just love capitalism.

Lifting a jacket off a rack is an entirely different thing than making a copy of the jacket. These are not even similar activities. Please explain to me the exact reason why it is not theft to buy a used CD, borrow a CD from a friend or borrow a CD from the library. The artist does not get paid under any of those circumstances either.

 

[Haywood]

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that I have a device that can make a perfect physical copy of anything I point it at. I like your car. I point my device at your car and pull the trigger. I now have a car just like your car. Did I steal your car?

 

[hawk52]

So who gets paid? Royalties , commissions, salaries ect... You point this device at my car and now have my car in a copy, that's a problem. If everyone does that, what happens. Don't need to make new cars. Don't need innovation to create. Shit don't need people to work and get paid. So they can't buy stuff. Other people aren't needed. They loose their jobs. See what I'm saying. A simple theft or copy of a CD jepordizes our fundamental basis for capitalism. Everything has an effect. People rely on others to buy their product. Take that away with a magic gun, we'er fucked...

 

[CMonster]

A bunch of people get paid to make the original and you're stealing their potential income. The occasional borrowing of a movie, or a truck, isn't a big deal but always circumventing payment to those who produced the original material is...

 

[hawk52]

I am not sure if you are in agreement with what I said. The bootleg industry is a problem. For all products, clothing, electronics and media. It takes money out of the mainstream and impacts people an their ability to make a living. As long as people are willing to buy a Rolex on Broadway and 42nd for $30 that industry will thrive.

 

[Haywood]

So who gets paid? Royalties , commissions, salaries ect... You point this device at my car and now have my car in a copy, that's a problem. If everyone does that, what happens. Don't need to make new cars. Don't need innovation to create. Shit don't need people to work and get paid. So they can't buy stuff. Other people aren't needed. They loose their jobs. See what I'm saying. A simple theft or copy of a CD jepordizes our fundamental basis for capitalism. Everything has an effect. People rely on others to buy their product. Take that away with a magic gun, we'er fucked...

None of which makes the magic gun copy theft. A disruptive technology? Yes. It would change the economy and our business model. That doesn't make it immoral.

While I do not consider copying theft, I do recognize that the arts can only exist through patronage. People have to make a living. If I want to continue to enjoy movies, then I need to support the people and businesses that create movies. That is why I buy so many movies. I want to financially support the movie industry so that they will continue to make products. As I said, I buy five or six movies for every one that I download and I often end up buying movies that I download later. Patronage is important. That still doesn't make copying theft.