Case in point: Last night I watched the Lon Chaney Phantom of the Opera. Copyright 1925.

I use Netflix to get access to movies I can't find in Hollywood Video. Even if this is available on pay-per-view, which I very much doubt, Cheney's heirs aren't getting one thin dime.

shrift, I'm beginning to wonder if you're on a hidden camera show. Or if God has found a new substitute for Job.

But our class is tied to money rather than family.

Almost completely nowadays. Racism lives, but you can transcend a lot of it if you make enough dough. And while the WASPs still have their happy little world they're they only one who gives a damn about it anymore -- nobody else reads the "socitety" pages or gives a darn who this years most stunning debutante is besides the parties in question.

The trailing edge, ita's 273 flicks, Kat's "they ain't no PPV around these parts" (my phrasing. Sorry, Kat) thing: I bet you can buy that DVD for money very close to the rental price, even now.

Racism lives, but you can transcend a lot of it if you make enough dough.

There is the PoV that racism means that very very few racially disadvantaged people will ever get to make that much dough -- making it not relevant to the bigger picture.

Also, once you do make that much dough, people of the correct colour making that much dough aren't any more enlightened than their poorer brethren -- tales I've heard make it sound even worse.

There's still an old money/new money divide, and most non-whites are definitively stuck on the new money side.

How does it help the creator more than renting?

Not to mention that the "creator" where DVD revenues are concerned is primarily the studio, nsm the artists.

Pop-tarts?

Is that legal? How does it help the creator more than renting?

The creator isn't getting a cut of rental. Or, anyway, a cut so slim, it is hard to notice.

I bet you can buy that DVD for money very close to the rental price, even now.

My Netflix fees would cover the purchase of two movies per month. On a slow month, I watch four movies. A fast month? I can watch ten. And I don't have to worry about storing them (I buy three more DVDs, I'll need new furniture. That day isn't too far off, since I like buying DVDs, but still. 273 DVDs? A lot of furniture)

Or, anyway, a cut so slim, it is hard to notice.

Agitating for their rights and then stealing movies -- I dunno. Not much of a moral high ground there.

And while the WASPs still have their happy little world they're they only one who gives a damn about it anymore -- nobody else reads the "socitety" pages or gives a darn who this years most stunning debutante is besides the parties in question.

Really?? Then why is Paris Hilton on television all the time? (AFAIK, she has both money and WASP pedigree. And most importantly, an eagerness to be noticed.) I don't personally read the society pages, but the existence of People Magazine and InStyle and Extra! all imply to me that a fascination with richer people than you or me is still a wildly popular activity.

There is certainly a segment of the US that is way rich and doesn't give a shit about fame and doesn't get profiled on VH1 "It's good to be..." But that's because profiles of people who are not into fashion and conspicuous consumption and sex in public are kind of boring.

Also, once you do make that much dough, people of the correct colour making that much dough aren't any more enlightened than their poorer brethren -- tales I've heard make it sound even worse.

And a rich, famous black man still can't get a cab in many cities.

I just checked. The 1925 Phantom is out of copyright. Nobody involved with the original gets a dime.