"Ultimate Hitchcock Collection" Public Domain release - Page 3

Jace_A · 01-24-2008, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Brian

When we talk about importing and exporting DVD's from other regions, what are we talking about? The unauthorized distribution of copywritten material in a manner that goes against the wishes and intentions of the copyright holder. Hmm...why does that sound SO familiar??? Oh yeah: because that's what bootlegging is!

100% WRONG.

Bootlegging is piracy; it is theft; it is illegal. Importing a legitimate DVD from another country for your own personal use is none of those things. It is legal in the country you bought it in; it is legal to import it; it is legal to view it. It does not go against the wishes and intentions of the copyright owner because the copyright owner creates the work in the full knowledge that, if that work is pressed on DVD outside the US, then a US consumer can import that disc without breaching the copyright owners rights. In most cases, the copyright owner in external territories is an affiliate or subsidiary of the US copyright owner. In other cases, they have signed deals with the foreign distributor to receive royalties from all sales made by that distributor internationally (including sales to US residents). That is, the copyright owner of the film in the US has authorized its pressing outside the US and understands the consequences of that action. If the US distributor is licensing a film from a foreign territory for sale in the US, then they also understand the consequences of this action, namely that they cannot prevent a US consumer from purchasing a disc from outside the US and importing that disc for personal use.

Do you get the distinction now?

george kaplan · 01-24-2008, 06:10 AM

Carl beat me to my response.

Robert Harris · 01-24-2008, 08:12 AM

The import / export of legitimately pressed discs is not bootlegging, nor is it illegal. It would be covered under the concept of "first sale," which permits the owner to do anything with their property that they may choose with the exception of public performance and copying.

The importation of a disc also seldom damages a local distributor, as importation usually flows toward a vacuum.

RAH

Tory · 01-24-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafink

But George did not say he was unable to convert the PAL signal to NTSC. He said that he was unwilling to put up with the video and audio being sped up by 4%.

But I said that you do not have to worry about conversion. Some LCDs, possibly all, read PAL signals. I mean they READ PAL signals as PAL. I am able to watch my PAL DVDs in PAL.

cafink · 01-24-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tory

But I said that you do not have to worry about conversion. Some LCDs, possibly all, read PAL signals. I mean they READ PAL signals as PAL. I am able to watch my PAL DVDs in PAL.

I am not worried about conversion. I am worried about PAL speed-up. PAL DVDs play 4% too fast, even when played in their native PAL format, so your solution does not help George, myself, or others who are bothered by the speed-up.

george kaplan · 01-24-2008, 10:55 AM

Tory,

I don't think you are understanding what Carl and I are saying. If a movie is 2 hours long, when we watch it, it will take 2 hours. On a Pal video, the movie plays too fast, and will only take 1 hour 55 minutes to play. Yes, this distorts the pitch, and yes, the pitch can be corrected. But everything is still playing too fast. To my knowledge, there is no way to take the Pal video, and slow it down so that it plays at the correct speed in 2 hours.

An analogy would be old lp record players if you are familiar with them. You could play at 33 1/3, 45 or 78 rpm. If you played an album (made at 33 1/3) at 45 rpm, it would go too fast.

Admittedly, the changes on an lp are more noticeable than with Pal speedup, but the issue is exactly the same, except that we don't have variable speed options as on a record player, so we are forced to watch pal videos at the wrong speed.

Until it is possible to import a pal video and watch it at the correct speed, many of us will take a pass on pal dvds.

SD_Brian · 01-24-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace_A

Do you get the distinction now?

No because the term "Bootlegger" refers to the seller, not the buyer. You're correct that a consumer is legally entitled to purchase and own imported DVD's (unless, of course, the content itself is illegal). You also can't be arrested for owning a pirated DVD if it's in your own personal collection, just like you can't be arrested for buying a knock-off of a Rolex.

Using the broad, dictionary definition of the term "Bootleg," however, the seller in all of the above instances could be considered a "bootlegger" and the disc, which is region-coded and not intended for sale in another region, could be considered a "bootleg."

But this is all semantics, dependent upon how you are defining the term 'bootleg.' The distinction should be between pirated copy and legitimately pressed copy.

Pirated copy = bad

, legitimately pressed copy = good

.

Ockeghem · 01-24-2008, 12:57 PM

This talk of pitch is fascinating.

For years I have been trying to figure out something regarding the Beatles films and the pitch of the music that is performed in them. (If this has been discussed before on this Board, I would gladly appreciate being pointed in the right direction.)

Can anyone tell me why many of the songs in (e.g.) A Hard Day's Night are roughly one-half step lower than when we hear them on the studio recordings? (This phenomenon existed years before the advent of DVD, since I first discovered the difference back in 1973.) To cite just a couple of examples, If I Fell is reproduced not in D major, but rather, D-flat major; and And I Love Her 'sounds' approximately one-half step lower than the studio recorded version.

If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. I've discussed this issue with a few scholars of the Beatles work (Walt Everett for one) over the years, and no one has ever been able to offer a convincing reason why this pitch differential occurs. Perhaps it is as simple as the entire film being played back at a slower rate? At least now I'm leaning that way, given some of what I've read in this thread. But I have no idea, and am looking for some speculation on why this might be so. I don't have the ear to know if John, Paul, George, or Ringo are speaking more slowly, but I do have the ear to know in which keys I am hearing the works.

Incidentally, I love the ethos when the songs are sounding a half-step lower, but that is probably a talk for another day.

Michael Elliott · 01-24-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace_A

100% WRONG.

It does not go against the wishes and intentions of the copyright owner

Do you get the distinction now?

And why are you so sure the copyright holders care?

I first watched these Hitchcock "PD" films when I was around seven so that was 20 years ago. In the 20 years since then there have been hundreds of companies that have released these and the "copyright holders" have never came out to stop the releases (which they could). This tells me that they really don't care. Synapse is a lot smaller than Criterion yet they were able to get certain releases pulled due to another studio releasing something they owned the rights to. Why isn't Criterion going after those who release THE LADY VANISHES or THE 39 STEPS? If Criterion wants to release a remastered YOUNG AND INNOCENT, why not go after those releasing it?