The Los Angeles Times recently ran a good piece about the studios’ reluctance to disclose exactly how much money they really make on DVDs. They’re happy to tell you that home video is absolutely crucial to profitability, particularly when it comes to the threat of piracy. But ask how much money they made from DVDs on, say, [Shrek](http://imdb.com/title/tt0126029/combined?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8dHQ9b258ZmI9dXxwbj0wfHE9c2hyZWt8aHRtbD0xfG5tPW9u;fc=1;ft=21;fm=1), and they whistle a tune while rocking back and forth on their heels.
Of course, knowing a precise figure is not idle curiosity. Peter Jackson, for instance, is suing over [Lord of the Rings](http://imdb.com/title/tt0120737/combined), suspecting he was shortchanged somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars for DVD payments.
You can read the whole story [here](http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-et-dvdmoney17apr17,1,213056.story?ctrack=1&cset=true). (Free registration required.)
See also:
[Glossary: Residuals](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/glossary-residuals)
[Big Fish sells 2 million DVDs in first week](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/big-fish-sells-2-million-dvds-in-its-first-week)