A Few Words About A few words about...™ Vendors, film piracy and national security (1 Viewer)

[FrancisP]

Does anyone know erxactly what happens? Just because someone suspects a copyright violation does not make it so. Perhaps Amazon is privy to information that we are not aware of. Copyrights can get very convuluted and what seems like a copyright violation may not be so.

 

[bigshot]

Precisely. That's why it's the job of the copyright holder to bring it to Amazon's attention and provide the necessary documentation. Idle speculation about whether something is licensed or not or protected by copyright or not does no one any good.

 

[bigshot]

Type Sinister Cinema into the Amazon search and just look at all the results.

How do you know Sinister Cinema didn't just do an inexpensive Thompson and Thompson title search to find out whether the copyright was renewed or not? If it wasn't, it's fair game.Groundless speculation about improper business practices of small video companies is a great way to guarantee that these films will never see the light of day again. PD video companies do film buffs a great service. They shouldn't be treated unfairly just because they are small.

 

[Robert Harris]

Does anyone know erxactly what happens? Just because someone suspects a copyright violation does not make it so. Perhaps Amazon is privy to information that we are not aware of. Copyrights can get very convuluted and what seems like a copyright violation may not be so.

I'm dealing in simple points. Nothing hidden here.RAH

 

[Keith Paynter]

A few years ago, one of the branches of our public library had a Korean DVD of The African Queen, as advertised for sale on Amazon. I posted a negative review on Amazon stating that this was in fact a bootleg, and that any potential buyers should steer clear. They also had a DVD-R of Melody (aka 'SWALK'), from a non-anamorphic NTSC letterboxed source. I had to inform our library that they were carrying obvious bootleg material, and they were good enough to remove them. When a library that does not permit unlicensed photocopying allows a non-licensed home video product into their collection, someone is not paying attention and could get them into serious legal trouble. A suggestion from a borrower for catalog material should always be checked for legitimacy.

 

[Michael Elliott]

How do you know Sinister Cinema didn't just do an inexpensive Thompson and Thompson title search to find out whether the copyright was renewed or not? If it wasn't, it's fair game.Groundless speculation about improper business practices of small video companies is a great way to guarantee that these films will never see the light of day again. PD video companies do film buffs a great service. They shouldn't be treated unfairly just because they are small.

I'm on your side. I'm against those trying to act high and mighty to protect something. I understand if they own it or are acting for the owner of a property but there are dozens of TV movies on Youtube that haven't been released to VHS, DVD, Laser and they certainly aren't hitting Blu so if a studio doesn't care to release something in 40 years and a fan posts it for other fans then I'm all for it. Those who would report said product wouldn't be much of a film buff to me or perhaps they just miss my point and I miss theirs.

As for Sinister, they have a few titles here and there that have been released through some other small labels who claim to have the rights. Do they? I really don't care enough to try and look it up. However, those Hitchcock titles that seem to be getting some attention around here are out everywhere and from everyone so perhaps no one cares enough for them to. If they do, waiting 30+ years to try and get something done just seems to be too late in my opinion because anyone who would want to own it probably does and they probably have the cheap version.

As for torrent sites, I've never used them, have no desire to and I really don't know where one is. I can see this being a problem but the importance of FRANKENSTEIN'S GREAT AUNT TILLIE just seems to be something I wouldn't worry too much about and I'm sure Amazon isn't either.

 

[ROclockCK]

Pirates expect - count on - public ignorance and/or apathy, plus 'more trouble than its worth' legal costs to keep themselves in business.

How long something has remained MIA on home video though is a rather weak justification for such 'I want'/'I want now' entitlement. As we've already seen with the course of catalogue Blu-ray, some very obscure, very deep, previously unreleased catalogue titles have finally surfaced from cottage labels here and overseas. To what degree any crude boots floating around might be siphoning those sales - if at all - admittedly, I don't know - their very existence alone might be giving the studios second, third, and even fourth thoughts about releasing those titles legitimately, fearing dilution of an already limited pool of demand.

Like I said, I can't quantify what effect this video piracy might be having on the current home video market. But on principle, it's just plain wrong, and if also creating an obstacle to even more good stuff reaching fans and collectors through legit channels, then from a practical standpoint alone I'm opposed to any attempts to either ignore, forgive, or normalize it.

 

[bigshot]

As for Sinister, they have a few titles here and there that have been released through some other small labels who claim to have the rights. Do they?

Sinister deals in films that were thought of as ephemeral. One or two runs through the drive in circuit and then abandoned. I'm sure it's all PD from lack of renewal of the copyrights.A lot of material people look at as bootleg are simply releases from a country where that material is public domain. It may not be PD here, but in some other countries it might be. I remember hearing a court case recently that upheld the right to sell "gray market" CDs in the US. I'm sure it's the same with a lot of DVDs too.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Pirates expect - count on - public ignorance and/or apathy, plus 'more trouble than its worth' legal costs to keep themselves in business.

How long something has remained MIA on home video though is a rather weak justification for such 'I want'/'I want now' entitlement. As we've already seen with the course of catalogue Blu-ray, some very obscure, very deep, previously unreleased catalogue titles have finally surfaced from cottage labels here and overseas. To what degree any crude boots floating around might be siphoning those sales - if at all - admittedly, I don't know - their very existence alone might be giving the studios second, third, and even fourth thoughts about releasing those titles legitimately, fearing dilution of an already limited pool of demand.

Like I said, I can't quantify what effect this video piracy might be having on the current home video market. But on principle, it's just plain wrong, and if also creating an obstacle to even more good stuff reaching fans and collectors through legit channels, then from a practical standpoint alone I'm opposed to any attempts to either ignore, forgive, or normalize it.

Then I'm going to guess that there aren't too many films you want to see that aren't available in ANY form. It's a lot easier when someone just deals with the same group of titles that find themselves being released over and over again on whatever new format comes along.

I want now? C'mon now. I think a 40+ year wait is long enough. DVD and Blu isn't going anywhere so the one hope is that these titles pop up streaming, which they slowly are but there are still thousands of titles that no one will ever touch. We all know there's a reason some titles will never get released. There's just no demand for them. I know this, you know it and the studios know it. If the studio isn't going to release them because they can't make a dime off of it then yeah, just send it out there for its handful of people. Do a MOD service. Do a streaming service. Just don't keep giving the same group of films for the mainstream.

And you can't cry this "known demand" policy. I think everyone from Warner down to my mother knows what demand there is going to be. Some like Warner is smart enough to create something like the Archives to give smaller fans what they want. Most companies like Retromedia or Code Red know how much they can or can't spend and they know what kind of demand is going to be out there and whether or not those "boot" companies have milked any demand that there might be. Of course, these boots also help genre fans because it means the likes of Blue Underground, Synapse and others must deliver a quality product, which is something they've constantly done.

 

[bigshot]

How long is an acceptable amount of time to wait for abandoned copyrights? Are we just supposed to assume that someone somewhere owns them until every film element rots?

 

[Kevin EK]

The frustration is understandable, but it's a simple fact that stealing is stealing. And that's what piracy is.

There are plenty of titles I would love to see available on DVD and/or Blu-ray. These include movies that my grandfather made between 60 and 75 years ago, like 100 Men and a Girl and No Highway in the Sky. You can buy bootlegs of 100 Men on Amazon, but I wouldn't touch them. I have a laserdisc copy that I'll sit with until such time as Universal puts it out as an MOD or something like that. If they don't, I still have a copy that I legitimately purchased.

And I also agree with the notion RAH mentioned of having a copy for personal use at home. I have paid plenty of money both for CDs and for iTunes. I have no issue with making a copy for myself on my iPod, so that I can listen to the music I purchased in my car or on the go. But that's not the same thing as if I made a copy of a CD and then tried to sell it or mass distribute it. Because once someone tries to distribute that copy, they're in a different situation altogether. Further, if I have a Blu-ray of a movie I like, and I invite my friends over to watch it with me, there's no problem there. But if I start charging admission, we get into a different realm...

 

[Michael Elliott]

So you're saying that we shouldn't watch movies unless they get an official release?

If so, there are thousands of movies that there's simply no way a studio will touch because they can't make a profit. In the case of these it's best that they just sit in a vault where no one can see them? There has to be some sort of middle ground for these films that aren't wanted by the studios, the masses and the majority of the people who watch films.

Again, I think the main post was aimed at big studios who cry over just about anything. There are a lot more examples of "smaller" pictures that the producers simply don't give a rat's ass about. They came into an extra $20,000 and decided to try and make something to show on 42nd street. Most of these people don't even realize that there is a market for their movies and many don't even realize that these things are wanted by people. Other producers simply don't care because they were just at a point in their lives where they wanted to do something different and now they're embarrassed by the product. I'm sure the likes of Something Weird have made a good profit on some of these examples.

It's one thing if some creep sneaks a camera into IRON MAN 3 on opening day and then starts spreading it around the web. It's something completely different if a profitless films from the 70s that hasn't been seen in 40 years has a handful of people watch/buy it. If a studio refuses to release something because they're not going to see a profit then keeping it in a vault isn't the thing to do. I know many will scream for Shout or someone to step in but even these guys have to pass on titles.

 

[Kevin EK]

I hear you on the idea of movies that the studios are never likely to release to DVD or Blu-ray. My grandfather made a bunch of these, although one at a time, more and more are seeing releases onto DVD via MOD or specialty houses like Twilight Time or Shout Factory.

The main post was a discussion of the fact that stolen movies can be found for sale at Amazon and other outlets, but that doesn't make it okay to buy them.

I realize there's a large number of movies that have never been made available on DVD. A number of these were available on videotape at one point, or on laserdisc at another. This is how I have my copy of 100 Men and a Girl, and how I have an old videotape of No Highway in the Sky. In a worst case scenario, I'm happy to have those copies. I'd rather have a DVD but that's not currently an option. And of course there's Spring Parade, which will never see a video release at this point.

But the best way to get to see the smaller movies to which you're referring is probably the current MOD programs that most studios have, where they're releasing smaller-demand movies on a to-order basis. I'd rather go that route, where you can ask the people doing the MOD selections to put the movie you want into the queue, than to give money to someone who stole the movie and wants you to pay them for what they did. And downloading a bootlegged file just feels to me like a continuation of the original theft.

The question to ask is what of these smaller movies are you hankering to see? The next question is to see whether Shout or Twilight Time or anyone like that has any purview to want to release them. And if not them, then an MOD program. I frankly wouldn't be surprised to see Roger Corman start doing MOD releases for some of the many movies he's made that have never been available on DVD.

 

[MichaelEl]

I realize there's a large number of movies that have never been made available on DVD. A number of these were available on videotape at one point, or on laserdisc at another. This is how I have my copy of 100 Men and a Girl, and how I have an old videotape of No Highway in the Sky. In a worst case scenario, I'm happy to have those copies. I'd rather have a DVD but that's not currently an option. And of course there's Spring Parade, which will never see a video release at this point.

But the best way to get to see the smaller movies to which you're referring is probably the current MOD programs that most studios have, where they're releasing smaller-demand movies on a to-order basis. I'd rather go that route, where you can ask the people doing the MOD selections to put the movie you want into the queue, than to give money to someone who stole the movie and wants you to pay them for what they did. And downloading a bootlegged file just feels to me like a continuation of the original theft.

You're just arguing market fundamentalism here.

The fact is that most or all of the filmmakers, technicians, and actors who worked on these old movies are deceased, and even if that weren't the case, it's certain that NONE of them would receive any money from digital downloads or a DVD release. Only the studios will profit, and even they can't make any money from these films, which generally have a very tiny fanbase.

I think I remember reading somewhere that Sony/Columbia sold fewer than a thousand copies of the JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS Blu-Ray. Now, if a reasonably-priced, high quality Blu-Ray of a classic film like that can't even attract a a thousand buyers, how many people are likely to spend $20 on a shoddy DVD-R of an obscure fantasy movie from the 1960s? I would bet that the sales for some of these "bootlegs" is a few dozen units at most, and should the government really be using up a lot of resources to crack down on "bootleggers" over the sales of a few dozen DVD-Rs here and there?

I think that at some point you just have to concede that a commercial product no longer has any real commercial value, and allow it to go into the public domain. This fundamentalist view that the studios should be allowed to maintain full rights in perpetuity on a mere copy of a copy of a film is just plain silly. No one - not the individuals who worked on these films and not even the rightsholders themselves - is really going to benefit much, if at all, from a crackdown on "bootleggers." Such enforcement will only hurt the fans of these films, as they will be denied access to these works; and more importantly, it will hurt the filmmakers themselves, as this lack of access will help to erase their works from the public consciousness. I'm not sure how you think you're benefiting from your refusal to watch a "bootleg"; however, I'm sure that the overpaid corporate executives who run the studios will thank you for your desire to protect their interests.

 

[Everett S.]

This is not only happening on-line.

DVD shop stalls run by Asians have been appearing in many of the larger size Shopping Malls here in Australia.
These are not your small Sunday Market or Car Trunk sales these are plumb in the middle of our top Exclusive and Respected Shopping Malls.

Every DVD on display is an Asian bootleg or dupe. They are all $10 each. They are all Classic Titles mainly from the 40s, 50s and 60s.
They have lots of Disney (Song of the South anybody?)
A number of the titles on display have never had a legit DVD release. ( I suspect a Laserdisc source on some)

I've had several noisy and at times close to physical confrontations with these people. (My Wife has had to drag me away)
They insult me when I question the legality of their product. ("Go away silly man, you know nothing")
I've tried contacting the Mall's management, but they ignore my complaints. ( I guess it's rent money to them)

By selling titles from that period only, I guess they think it's safe that anybody will challenge them over copyright and legality.

I would never touch their product so I've no idea of the disc quality.

This whole piracy thing makes me sick to my stomach.

Doug.

Let's call it what it is STEALING these guys are thevies!!

 

[Everett S.]

I got a letter with my Blu-Ray of "Psyco" from an Amazon vendor asking me to contact them before I gave them a bad review. The money they made went for
schooling children (picture included). It was post marked China! Also date shipped was three weeks later then the e-mail said.

 

[Patrick Donahue]

To add even more fuel to this fire, *both* Amazon and iTunes are now selling obvious boots of 2 Herrmann/Hitchcock scores. To make it even worse, Marnie is ripping off Universal's own art, and Psycho didn't even bother to include the music for the shower scene!
Psycho
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Psycho-Original-Movie-Soundtrack/dp/B00CWVDJKI/ref=sr_1_20?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&qid=1369777260&sr=1-20&keywords=bernard+herrmann
ITunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/psycho-original-movie-soundtrack/id651260580
Marnie
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Marnie-Original-Film-Score/dp/B00CWVF3FM/ref=sr_1_3?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&qid=1369777173&sr=1-3&keywords=Marnie
ITunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/marnie-original-film-score/id651254431

 

[Robert Harris]

To add even more fuel to this fire, *both* Amazon and iTunes are now selling obvious boots of 2 Herrmann/Hitchcock scores. To make it even worse, Marnie is ripping off Universal's own art, and Psycho didn't even bother to include the music for the shower scene!
Psycho
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Psycho-Original-Movie-Soundtrack/dp/B00CWVDJKI/ref=sr_1_20?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&qid=1369777260&sr=1-20&keywords=bernard+herrmann
ITunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/psycho-original-movie-soundtrack/id651260580
Marnie
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Marnie-Original-Film-Score/dp/B00CWVF3FM/ref=sr_1_3?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&qid=1369777173&sr=1-3&keywords=Marnie
ITunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/marnie-original-film-score/id651254431

Amazon will not be concerned.

Apple may.

Worth reporting.

RAH

 

[Patrick Donahue]

Amazon will not be concerned. Apple may. Worth reporting. RAH

Done

 

[Kevin EK]

The notion of "It's okay to steal this movie because the people who worked on it are dead" is a little odd to me. In some cases, it's true that the only party with ownership of a movie from the 1930s is the studio that holds the rights to it. In other cases, there will likely be families of the people who continue to receive whatever share of it their grandfather or great-grandfather left them.

But let's say that the only one who profits is the studio - who either originally put up the investment to make the movie, or who acquired this library after having produced many similar movies. (For example, Universal getting the rights to earlier Paramount movies, or Warner Brothers getting the rights to Paramount catalogue titles) These studios continue to release movies from the 1930s, 40s and 50s and more - sometimes as MOD titles and sometimes in collections as we've seen from the Universal Backlot series in conjunction with TCM. If people were to just steal the movies they wanted from the Universal library, then Universal would have no reason to try to release catalogue titles like those.

The proper response if you're not seeing a release of the movie you want is to either ask for an MOD or ask one of the specialty houses to take it. And if the movie exists on another media form, such as VHS, to get that copy of the movie and enjoy it.

My refusal to watch bootlegged DVDs has nothing to do with me receiving a benefit or somehow bowing down to overpaid corporate executives. I just don't believe in stealing and I don't want stolen property in my home. Nothing more complicated than that.