I've seen the this argument about pornography being released only on VHS trotted out quite frequently recently. It is however completely untrue as a little research will easily show.

Long before Andre Blay was selling 20th century Fox titles under the Magnetic Video label, "Oui" magazine was advertising Russ Meyer's Vixen and Deep Throat for sale solely on Betamax. When VHS came out the porn industry was more than happy to release on that format as well. What today's reporters don't seem to understand is that the startup costs for movie duplication on video 30 years ago amounted to buying three VCRs - one to play (a U-matic if you were lucky), and one each VHS and Beta for recording. There was no need to invest in expensive clean rooms, huge factories or even any licensing fees to the JVC or Sony as one needs today for mass optical disk replication. You bought a few VCRs and you could begin cranking out movies, porn, whatever you wanted to sell. There was no incentive for the porn industry to back just VHS (or just Beta for that matter) as you'd only cut yourself out of a major portion of the nascent market. I've seen ridiculous references from current reporters to Sony not wanting to sully their format with porn titles or charging high licensing fees to replicators. Sony couldn't stop anybody releasing anything on Beta (or charging a licensing fee for that matter) as once you'd bought your VCR you could record anything you wanted with it.

I don't know where this VHS-only porn nonsense got started, but people are blindly repeating it without checking any sources. On the other hand, all I have to do is refer to my trusty stack of Video magazines from the 1980s and check out the classified section to give you the true state of affairs. In the "Adult" (they didn't refer to it as "porn") section I can see a couple of pages of titles and they're all available in VHS and Beta. Let me repeat that with emphasis: they're ALL available in VHS and Beta. There wasn't a single title, straight or gay (the market was also independent of sexual orientation) which was restricted to just the one format.

Reporters today are very lazy and some weren't even born, let alone worked in the video industry during the VHS/Beta format wars. They weren't there to remember the facts (excusable) and can't be bothered to research them (inexcusable), preferring to blindly regurgitate what they read somewhere on the internet.

Please, look up any ads for video porn from 25-30 years ago when the format war was being decided and you'll see the words "VHS and Beta" in every one.

Colin

On Mar 4, 2008, at 2:46 PM, martin s wrote:


The demise of Beta over VHS was not due to major studio politics, pricing, quality or recording time... It was due to the porn industry --

When the porn industry chose to market almost exclusively on VHS, it was the end of Beta. Porn was what people were buying and renting and that was on VHS... So... VHS players were what was selling.

It may also be the same with HD vs Blu Ray

http://www.macworld.com/article/50627/2006/05/pornhd.html

Best wishes,

LEE


----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 03:22:59 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MOPO] DVD RECORDERS --  BLUE RAY
To: [email protected]

A little more history:

Fall 1976:  Sony brings to market a TV with a built in Betamax for
$2,300
Spring 1977:  Sony sells just the Betamax VCR for $1,400
Summer 1977: RCA introduces the VHS Selectavision for $1,000;
Panasonic sells their equivalent VHS for $1,095
November 1977: Zenith's Betamax clone goes on sale for $994; Sony
reduces its Betamax to $1,095

Apart from a very brief period in mid-1997, their were no major
differences in price between VHS and Betamax hardware.  As the market
developed and more licensees came on board on both camps, Sony went
after the mid- and high-end Beta market while Sanyo pursued the low-
end, and with VHS Panasonic/Matsushita went mid- and high end and RCA
went low-end.  I can find no evidence of a major price differential
between VHS and Beta until the late 1980's and beyond when the bulk of VCR production moved from Japan to Korea and VHS prices dropped so low that they practically took VCRs into the disposable category. By that
time VHS was by far the dominant format.  So, the price differential
between VHS and Beta wasn't the cause of Beta's demise, but rather was
a consequence of VHS's triumph and the economies of scale of the
market transitioning to almost all-VHS .

I completely defer to your experience of studio politics and
practices, of which I have no knowledge, but even if retailers made
more money off of VHS titles vs Beta, the end price to consumers was
the same irrespective of the format.  In any case, the format war was
won by VHS during the time when the market for purchasing movies was
virtually non-existent as the studios were pricing their titles for
sale to rental establishments, and rental prices were the same for
both formats.  By the time Paramount came out with the first "name"
title  at what was then considered a sell-through price ($39.95 if I
remember correctly) the format war was already over - Sony just hadn't
acknowledged it.

In my opinion, Beta lost to VHS because Sony always put video quality
ahead of maximum recording time, and the mass market always did the
reverse.  TVs were small in those days and VCRs were mostly connected
via the an antenna port such that the difference in quality was less
obvious.  Betamax eventually topped out at 4.5 hours vs 6 hours for
VHS (I'm not counting the times with the unreliable, extended length
super-thin tapes from both camps).  It was always the format with the
shortest recording time and they were never able to convince the
market that the increased quality was worth the price.

Colin


On Mar 3, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Craig Miller wrote:

I'll bow to you that I confused the Copyguard name with Macrovision.
And you're also correct that when I said Beta I was speaking of
Betacam
-- though it was frequently just referred to as Beta by people using the cameras, it was more correctly called Betacam and I'd forgotten that.
But Betamax recorders were definitely more expensive than VHS
recorders for a number of years. And not by just $20 or $40. I never
said anything about the retail prices of pre-recorded tapes.  I was
talking
about wholesale.  Also, in addition to individual pricing,
distributors
frequently "bundled" their product -- cutting per unit price if you
bought
multiples or cutting prices if you purchased multiple titles.  This
was much
more heavily done with VHS than with Betamax format tapes, keeping the
same retail and official wholesale prices but making it far more
profitable
for a retailer to carry the VHS versions.

Craig.
Who'll freely admit his memory isn't perfect.


        Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
  ___________________________________________________________________
             How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List

      Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
           In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L

   The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

        Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
  ___________________________________________________________________
             How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
           In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

Reply via email to