snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 15 July 2018, 06:58 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is online now
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,593
TV Alaska’s last 2 Blockbuster stores are closing, leaving just one in the U.S.

Quote:
The two remaining Blockbuster stores in Alaska are set to close, marking the end of an era in what has long been one of the video rental business's last strongholds.
https://www.adn.com/business-economy...-set-to-close/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 15 July 2018, 07:05 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,658
Default

The last store is in Bend, Oregon. I think it's the first time in a good long time that Bend made the national news.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16 July 2018, 01:33 PM
overyonder overyonder is online now
 
Join Date: 03 March 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,114
Default

It's sad to see them go, but I always scratch my head at what they did wrong. They could have become the first Netflix if they had the vision.

They already had agreements to rent out movies, going the next step would have been feasible.

OY
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16 July 2018, 02:08 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 840
TV

They could even have moved into the kiosk area - like Redbox, which still seems to be doing business. Then they could have slowly reduced stores while increasing the online and kiosk areas.

BTW, I'm not sure they had "agreements to rent out movies" per se. I believe it is legal to just buy copies of tapes or DVDs and rent them out without paying royalties, based on the concessions made by the studios in the dawn of the video rental business. Of course, they probably had deals to get early releases, mass discounts, exclusive content, etc. with some distributors.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16 July 2018, 02:17 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,534
Default

I don't think that is true. Movies usually have a disclaimer at the beginning stating that it is only licensed for personnel use.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16 July 2018, 05:23 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
I don't think that is true. Movies usually have a disclaimer at the beginning stating that it is only licensed for personnel use.
True, and maybe technically enforceable. But the business model that emerged from the early days simply had the studios/distributors making their profits by charging high prices for new movies, rather than seeking royalties from rentals, which was the original plan. It was easier than suing the thousands of independent video stores over renting copyrighted material. They might have lost those suits as well - do publishers have a right to stop libraries from lending books?

As I said, the studios did enter into all kinds of partnerships, but they never explicitly agreed with the rental companies that renting the tapes or DVDs was okay in general - they just let it happen.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18 July 2018, 02:22 AM
Dasla's Avatar
Dasla Dasla is offline
 
Join Date: 15 April 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
They could even have moved into the kiosk area - like Redbox, which still seems to be doing business. Then they could have slowly reduced stores while increasing the online and kiosk areas.

BTW, I'm not sure they had "agreements to rent out movies" per se. I believe it is legal to just buy copies of tapes or DVDs and rent them out without paying royalties, based on the concessions made by the studios in the dawn of the video rental business. Of course, they probably had deals to get early releases, mass discounts, exclusive content, etc. with some distributors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
I don't think that is true. Movies usually have a disclaimer at the beginning stating that it is only licensed for personnel use.
Back in 84-85 my parents owned a video store* which I worked in. We had a computer system the would list how much a video cost, how many times it had been rented and how much it had made. So as far as I know you just bought the videos and rented it out. Back in those days it cost quite a bit to buy a movie, like a 80 to 100 dollars. So much that very few people bought a movies to keep. Unless you really, really liked it.

*They owned a newsagency a few doors from it and my parents bought it when the owner got into financial difficulty.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 27 July 2018, 10:53 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
I don't think that is true. Movies usually have a disclaimer at the beginning stating that it is only licensed for personnel use.
That means you can't show it for non-personal use. You can do whatever you want with the actual physical medium once you buy it, including renting it out for profit. The big exceptions are (IIRC) music recordings and computer programs, which can't be rented out commercially without the consent of the copyright holder (which is why there wasn't a Blockbuster for music even though you could get it at libraries).

Last edited by lord_feldon; 27 July 2018 at 11:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26 July 2018, 04:03 AM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
They could even have moved into the kiosk area - like Redbox, which still seems to be doing business. Then they could have slowly reduced stores while increasing the online and kiosk areas.
They tried that before the Viacom buy-out with video games. At the time, Blockbuster saw their biggest issue was getting content on release day. They tried a kiosk to create discs on demand but licensees weren't on board with letting Blockbuster do that. The kiosk system for video games failed again due to licenses.

Anyhow, they basically stopped with dealing with new content ventures once Viacom bought them. No need to worry anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
So, wait - are they giving Russel Crowe's jockstrap back to Russel Crowe, or to John Oliver? It's not really clear who they mean by "the owner".
If I remember correctly, Oliver gave it to the store's owner as a gift. I believe I read another article would get the items and might return them to Oliver (Unless he wants to keep it)

Last edited by diddy; 26 July 2018 at 04:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27 July 2018, 02:06 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,401
Mouse

But if they return Russell Crowe's jockstrap, what will happen to John Oliver's Koala Chlamydia Ward?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16 July 2018, 03:21 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by overyonder View Post
It's sad to see them go, but I always scratch my head at what they did wrong. They could have become the first Netflix if they had the vision.

They already had agreements to rent out movies, going the next step would have been feasible.

OY
According to Netflix's Wikipedia page, Blockbuster actually turned down a chance to acquire Netflix back in 2000. Netflix was losing money at the time and didn't turn a profit until 2003; it's unclear to me when or if they started consistently turning a profit.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16 July 2018, 05:08 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by overyonder View Post
It's sad to see them go, but I always scratch my head at what they did wrong. They could have become the first Netflix if they had the vision.

They already had agreements to rent out movies, going the next step would have been feasible.

OY
I think the best description of "what Blockbuster did wrong" was they made gigantic piles of cash for a decade or more. When you are making that much money you can't imagine that a new way of doing things would come along and completely displace you in couple years. Being extremely successful tends to make a company stodgy, or at least tentative. Neither works in the modern movie and content marketplace. Blockbuster got into the mail delivery of DVDs too late and Netflix destroyed them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your late fees are waived: Blockbuster closes JoeBentley Business Bytes 39 08 November 2013 11:03 AM
Westminster Bridge is closing down Jenn Fauxtography 39 29 January 2010 11:07 PM
Stores closing at the end of the year snopes Inboxer Rebellion 7 26 May 2008 07:02 PM
Bogus Blockbuster Coupon snopes Snopes Spotting 0 08 August 2007 05:57 AM
Blockbuster coupon Arts Myth Inboxer Rebellion 1 07 August 2007 10:49 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.