I went into my local independant video shop today and there is a big notice up saying they will no longer be stocking Warner titles for rental.

According to the notice 80% of video rental shops in the UK have got together, including big names like Blockbuster and they have agreed to no longer stock warners titles.

I cant make out the exact reason but they say its becuase warners are using strong arm tactics and the rental shops aren't having any of it.

It also said something about "Warners are trying to change the video industry to suit their own requirements".

Warners must really be screwing them if its bad enough for 80% of UK shops to join forces including independants.

Also there was something about Warner unsuccessfully suing Blockbusters in the US and the Austrailian Video Industry.

I doubt that it has anything to do with Warners "screwing" them, though that may be the perception of the video rental folks. This boycott of WB films is probably linked to the fact that WB (and some other studios) want to develop the video market (read, DVD) as a sell through business, rather than rental. With tapes, more people rented than bought movies. DVDs are working the opposite way - since the film companies keep the price to buy the discs cheap, people are more apt to buy them outright, rather than rent. Rental companies, particularly Blockbuster, are feeling the pinch. Fewer people are renting tapes and they are not necessarily renting DVDs instead, they are buying them.

As a consumer, I'd say it's the rental places that are doing the "screwing". If the studios bow to the pressure and jack the prices up on DVDs just so the rental business can continue to feed at the trough, it'll just mean higher prices for films you want to buy. There will always be a place to rent from, if you want to rent, but you should also be able to buy.

This is what happens when we let big retailers (or renters) get too big - they try to force their ideas of how things should be on the rest of us, just to keep their profits up. WalMart forces record companies (by threats to not buy product) to produce censored albums and they are currently pressuring film studios to NOT produce widescreen DVDs. The large bookstore chains, like Borders and Barnes & Noble, apply pressure to publishers about what they should and should not publish and how it should be presented. We're losing control of what we are allowed to consume, folks!

Now, after all of that, what's this have to do with Prince? Let's keep the prices low and pressure WB to put out a nice DVD of Purple Rain, UTCM, GB and the video collections!

markweaver said:

I called blockbuster corporate, and they said that the only Warner title (singular) that they aren't carrying is Training Day, in the UK. This will not affect any US stores...and is only the one film, the head of media relations for blockbuster said to me, "We don't agree with the stipulations Warner has put on the one film...but this does not affect any other warner films...at least not yet."

_leighsa

markweaver said:

Yet more of the pathetic WB bashing at the Org... In case you haven't noticed people, it was WB that brought Prince to you in the first place, it was WB that allowed Prince to release movies and multiple side projects (despite losing money left and right), it was WB that released singles, albums and videos for affordable prices to just about every store so you didn't have to pay stupid money to get an album (TRC anyone?),...

I think the truth behind this story is that Warners want to change the agreement with rental companies for both videos and DVD`s.

Up to now most films are released to the video rental market before being available to purchase by consumers.
For this priviledge the rental companies have an greement with the studios and pay a premium for this, however the success of the Harry Potter video/DVD which was made available to the consumer at the same time as the video rental market made Warners realise that there is mileage (and more money) in bypassing the rental market and selling films directly to consumers.
If they do this it will be a reversal of the agreement they currently have with rental companies hence their upset.
This is certainly the case in the UK and has been reported in most newspapers.
(Incidentally I may be wrong but I think Disney have been doing this for ages and possibly have no agreement with rental companies)

My own view ; I don`t rent much , but when I do I tend to go for lower budget "leftfield" films instead of the latest blockbuster , mostly because the rise of multiplexes has meant I have less choice when I go to the cinema and often can`t see the films I want (the most recent examples being Mulholland Drive , and Woody Allens last film , where I would have had to travel over 60 miles to see them).
My only concern with this move is that it will ultimately restrict choice , if rental shops go out of business , ultimately less films will get made and they will be the lower budget "artier" type films and all we will be left with is the big no brain blockbusters.

Hmmm perhaps there is a parallel with the music industry in this after all.

I was looking at videos in a shop yesterday and if you look on the back of a new film out in the UK called 'Our lips are sealed' there is a yellow lable on the back saying that the product was not for rental. This is a new WB video and I'd never seen a lable like this before. It's probably to stop pireting of videos that are sent to the rental shops b4 there relased 4 perminant perchase.