Why would it be better to buy pirated DVDs instead of just pirating them yourself? I don’t really see the difference…
This is a good topic. I am a musician and can honestly say, if i did not obtain music without paying for it, i would nto be the same person i am today. Also, being a musician and releasing an album, for me, i feel that as long as soemone is listening than i dont mind/care how they obtained the songs. this point can be applied to film, i think most “artists” will just want their film to be watched, no matter the means the viewer takes to watch.
The only time I pirate a film is when it doesn’t have a R1 release. If they wont sell it to me then i’ll have to get it another way.
I do not agree with Josef K, but I do agree with sexy beast; it is difficult if a Studio sits on its behind while punters are growing older by the day. Library titles should be made available to the market place much quicker than it is now. Furthermore, since the advent of BLURAY, it has slowed smaller independents releasing regular editions of titles on DVD, so they can coincide the release with a BLURAY version. Look at a film like “Let the Right One In”, the film has been out there for close to a year, and yet the DVD is still not available; it is coming in March ‘09, but I’ve got a copy of it to tide me over till I buy the official release (no, it is not for lending or copying…I simply adore the film and need it NOW).
As for Josef, I would feel bad ripping music from an independent artist without paying for it; you guys need the money for more gear and recording facilities; that stuff is not cheap by any means.
Ultimately, for all our sakes as consumers..ART needs to be patronized for quality product to be produced…..stuff that will bend our minds in new and challenging ways.
That’s my take on it.
Pirating films is bad news. Many hard working people are not properly remunerated when movies are copied without permission. Not only that but, the quality of movies suffers at the hands of pirates.
I don’t agree with Josef K. at all. There are way too many properly released films that I haven’t seen yet to waste my on inferior bootlegs. I would much rather find a high quality DVD of a movie than watch a crappy copy of something that has gotten a proper release.
I don’t buy any of these justifications for ripping people off.
Buying pirated copies is just plain stupid. You’re not only supporting a specific number of people financially, but you’re also cheating yourself in the end. You still end up paying for those pirated copies and those DVDs are known to be a lower grade thus degrading within time. So everything you have invested in those pirated copies is a complete waste.
I don’t know if you can say we’re cheating a major corporation; i.e. Universal or Warner Bros. It’s a bigger subject than you can imagine but I for one am FOR internet piracy (only because I do see it as a form of free speech) though I have hardly pirated films online. This is because I care far too much about the quality of a film and where I watch it.
If anyone is interested in this topic, you can check out Steal This Film documentary: http://www.stealthisfilm.com
Josef K., music is a luxury that you cannot afford, therefore, you are a thief. In regards to you not being the same person you are today, you’re right- you shouldn’t be this way. You’re simply a thief.
In regards to films, thanks to pirating, many companies I enjoy are now going under, and the rest are switching to VOD due to costs and pirating. If you really want to hear some interesting views, invest some time into reading this thread on AV Maniacs, which began with a simple question about the longevity of Cinemageddon, a popular torrent tracker that predominately hosts torrents of hard to find/OOP films…
http://www.avmaniacs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39469
Please do look into it.
“The only time I pirate a film is when it doesn’t have a R1 release. If they wont sell it to me then i’ll have to get it another way.”
The other way I use is called “importing”. And if it’s not available elsewhere I have another method called “waiting” and possibly “complaining”.
“The other way I use is called “importing”. And if it’s not available elsewhere I have another method called “waiting” and possibly “complaining”.”
I like that. The thing is, even though our copyright laws don’t favor releases across seas, you’re pirating it doesn’t mean someone in the film industry isn’t loosing money.
Hey Kevin Salyers, it seems as though you’re the voice of reason here. Thank you for the link to avmaniacs.com.
Pirating of films just plain wrong. If a film doesn’t get an R1 release, I’m not going to waste my time looking for it. There so many good films that are available that I couldn’t possibly watch all in a single lifetime. I don’t understood the fixation with films that aren’t available in the U.S. We are so lucky to have the Criterion Collection. What could possibly be better than that?
I agree 100% with you, Josef K.
I don’t have a lot of money, and were it not for pirating, I would see very few films.
If I don’t pirate DVDs, I won’t be able to afford to buy them anyway, so no one is losing my money.
Those of you who claim that it’s inherently morally wrong – do you think borrowing DVDs from the library is morally wrong as well? Borrowing a DVD from a friend?
I’ve purchased pirated films without R1 releases. They were films I wanted to see, so I went out of my way to make it happen.. If one director/producer/studio/best boy misses $0.02 on a royalty check that’s never coming because the film’s only available on a CD-R from Taiwan so be it. I have no guilt, because movies are meant to be seen. I’ve purchased/rented enough DVDs and have paid $9 for a theater ticket enough times to make up for it in the aggregate.
I understand if you have a library of pirated films that you have no intention of purchasing, but I often will download a movie and watch it before deciding to buy it. If a movie sucks, then it doesn’t deserve a purchase, and if its good, then I’ll support the filmmaker and get the best quality copy I can by purchasing the film. The fact that studios will often release the same popular DVD 4 or 5 times doesn’t really help matters much. No thanks, I’ll watch it now and then when they decide to release the super-duper deluxe edition, I’ll pick that up.
I agree with Josef K., if it wasn’t for the prevalence of obscure and hard to find films on bittorrent, I wouldn’t have the interest in film that I do today. I also wouldn’t own the hundreds of DVDs that I own because the passion just wouldn’t have existed if it was not for the internet. Are books a luxury? Is the fact that I often check out books from the library, sometimes new editions that would have cost me over 15 bucks, read them and don’t purchase them a horrible act? Access to books and whatever DVDs that a library has doesn’t seem to be a luxury at all. I don’t see how the line can be drawn so starkly when it comes to downloading or watching pirated DVDs. If the intent is DISCOVERY and eventually purchasing the best films that are discovered, I don’t see this as such a big issue. Plenty of films wouldn’t have even graced my consciousness, much less ended up in my DVD collection, if it wasn’t for the prevalence of films available for free on the internet.
Once again, I feel like I am banging my head against the wall, wondering why someone would even start a thread like this. Basically, Scarier Than Frankenstein has put it as simply with his first sentence. Mustafa also makes validity with his comments as well. From a business side of things you might want to check out the link Kevin Salyers has kindly provided – read about Don, from Synapse Films, and his problems with illegal downloading, and you might get a better understanding.
At the end of the day, it is called pirating for a reason, and if you don’t know your history, lets just say that pirates were not nice guys.
Ten, you state: “If I don’t pirate DVDs, I won’t be able to afford to buy them anyway, so no one is losing my money.” Sorry mate, but just is just plain nonsense. Look at the situation in reverse, and you might understand things better.
You also go further by saying: “Those of you who claim that it’s inherently morally wrong – do you think borrowing DVDs from the library is morally wrong as well? Borrowing a DVD from a friend?”
I think you are completely missing the point. You have to remember that whether borrowing from the library or from a friend, that disc you are borrowing, has still been paid for in the first place, so at least the distributors who have put the DVD out, have at least made some money from it. Libraries are, and always have been, a service for people, especially for those who cannot usually afford to buy books or DVD’s. They are not breaking any laws.
This is nothing to do with morals, but legalities. At the end of the day, pirating is stealing. Plain and simple. We have laws in place for a reason.
Slayere, you state that you have no guilt about pirating because you state that films are meant to be seen. That might be very true, but you will also probably find that that the people who decided to make the films – that you are pirating – were the ones to make that initial decision, not you. And I am sure that most of those filmmakers disagree with your comments, especially because of the fact that you are depriving them from royalties and other income.
Josef K, you mention: “think most “artists” will just want their film to be watched, no matter the means the viewer takes to watch.”
Josef, I think that if you asked any filmmaker, that the majority would disagree. In fact, if had decided that I wanted to be a filmmaker, my main goal would be so that I could make a living off my art. So yes, I would love for as many people as possible to see my films, but nobody deserves to be given a free ride – I would expect at least something for my hard work.
Imagine if you were working at your job and after ten years your boss tells you that he is going to reduce your wages by half, because he believes that there are plenty of people he can now hire, with the relevant skills, to replace you. I am sure that you would not be happy.
It is amazing that people in favour of pirating have provided so many reasons behind their reasoning to pirate films, and yet others here have come up with simple alternatives.
You say you are too poor to afford films – well, borrow them from the library, and then later when you can afford to, then get the DVD yourself if you want.
You say a film is not available in your region – well do, as Michael Brooke has suggested – import them if possible.
The ‘excuses’ you have provided are just not justifiable. They are only that – excuses!
What a couple of you don’t realise is how much damage you are actually doing to the industry by pirating. The less distributors/film companies make from their films, due to piracy, the less they are going to put into films, which eventually means that we are all losers.
I have a small independent record label – its something that I do for the love of it, not to make money. It’s more of a hobby for me. It’s a fine profit margin and I tell you, it pisses me to no end to see the music of my bands, either directly pirated or put on bit torrent sites. This is not just money that my label misses out on to put back into promotion etc, but also royalties that my bands miss out on. They don’t expect to make a living off their music, but what is the point of even releasing their stuff, if they can’t even make enough money to cover their costs, because people would rather have the music for ‘free’. These people shouldn’t have the right to free load off my hard work or my bands hard work. Sometimes I just feel like throwing the label in because of the attitude of these people.
In Australia, piracy counts for 10% of the music industry. That’s actually a huge amount. In a couple of year’s time, that will probably turn into 20% and so forth, until…
The same applies for the film industry. How many of these companies do you think you still be around in a few years, if people continue to freeload off them.
You look at things from one point of view, but not from the other side. How would you like if I came into your house and walked away with your favourite possessions. If we follow your stance, its not like you can really complain – I’d just tell you that I am borrowing them and will give them back when I feel like it. If you ask why, I will just say because I can’t afford my own.
At the end of the day, pirating comes down to one thing – stealing. You download something without permission, then it makes you a thief. A criminal.
What upsets me the most is that all of us here are meant to be film fans. We should be supporting the industry, not destroying it. If you don’t understand how things work, then ask, or do some homework. Personally, I agree with Mustafa – I really don’t understand how films can be counted as a disposable product, at least now that we have DVD’s. Whether its CD’s or film, to me it’s about the whole packaging.
And, as Scarier Than Frankenstein so accurately puts it: We are lucky to have the Criterion Collection. Lets not undermine them.
You say it’s about legalities and not morals and yet no one here is arguing that pirating films is legal. That would be a very simple argument to solve, and a very stupid thing for anyone to argue against. The problem is precisely that you’re confusing morality with legality. Just because a law exists does not make it right. Copyright law has not always existed, nor has it always been as harsh and overbearing as it is now. Those changes came about through intense lobbying on the behalf of giant corporations. The history of copyright law has always been about a tug of war between the businesses and the consumers, between the creators of culture and those who wish to experience it. It’s not nearly as simple as you’re making it out to be. Do you believe everything your government tells you to believe? Follow every dictum they outline for you? Just because I’m a “criminal” as you so adamantly insist, doesn’t make me a bad person. You are taking a steam roller to a very complex issue and flattening it down into simple minded rhetoric.
Also: stealing and piracy are NOT the same thing. This confusion always bothers the hell out of me. This is a simple matter of definition. Do yourself a favor and look up the two words in the dictionary or encyclopedia. Stealing is only applicable to an original copy of something. To use your example, if I went to your house and took a DVD off your shelf, that would be theft. Piracy, on the other hand, involves the creation of a copy. The original thing is left intact. When I steal something, the owner is left without that thing. When I pirate something, the owner is completely unaffected. Theft is detrimental to the owner and beneficial to the thief. Piracy is beneficial to the pirate, but neither beneficial nor detrimental to the owner. See the difference?
Do you know anything about the laws of economics? There’s something called a “free good,” which means a good with zero scarcity. Air is a free good. So are words. Since DVDs are nothing but series of numbers that can be copied endlessly without any change to the original copy, they have no scarcity, and hence, according the law of supply and demand, NO MONETARY VALUE. Copyright law has the effect of ARTIFICIALLY assigning value to these goods, by punishing anyone who attempts to reproduce them.
You say I should be supporting “the industry.” Why on earth would I ever want to support an industry? I support filmmakers. I support artists. I don’t support people who profit off of their creations by doing very little work themselves, acting merely as middlemen. I am in no way lucky to have the Criterion Collection!
I am a filmmaker AND a musician, and I can tell you that I have no problem disseminating my works free of charge. Just as Josef K has said, it is far more important to me that people experience my creations than it is that I receive money from them. When I decided to make art, I had no delusion that I was going to make money off of it. I probably never will make money from it, and yet I’ll always continue to do it. Do you really think Godard and Anonioni and Fellini sat around all day thinking about fucking royalty checks? Get real.
I’m not some whacko, or just a slacker who wants to free load. The ideas you’re talking about are incredibly controversial and hotly debated, becoming even more so in the past decade. Despite what you may think, the argument is not a one sided one, and there are many people who take my stance, and not for selfish reasons, either. I’d prefer if you addressed my actual points, rather than quickly regarding them as “nonsense” and going off on some Lars Ulrich-style rant.
I’m extremely unimpressed by the “you’re only stealing from giant corporations” argument, as it’s usually not true. A tiny label like Second Run operates on an absolute shoestring, and they need piracy like they need a hole in the head – especially as they bend over backwards to sell their DVDs at a lower-than-average RRP. And yes, “the fucking royalty checks” ARE important to people like that, because although they don’t make much of a profit, they need to break even at the very least in order to stay in business.
And their catalogue is precisely the kind of thing that ends up torrented because people assume that their titles are too obscure to matter, or that they have no real value. But as far as Second Run are concerned, they have a very definite and definable monetary value, as they paid a certain sum for the rights, and the production, distribution and marketing costs of the DVDs. If THEY wanted to release the material online (assuming their contract with the primary rightsholder allows this), that’s THEIR decision, not yours.
(I’m only mentioning Second Run because I know the guys there very well indeed and have contributed to several of their discs myself. But I don’t personally get royalties – or indeed fees: I’m happy to do the occasional piece for them gratis because I support their project so wholeheartedly. So there’s no self-interest here: I just think they’re a superb label who need piracy and spurious justifications for piracy like they need the proverbial hole in the head – and you could substitute any number of similar labour-of-love labels – Flicker Alley, Masters of Cinema, Milestone, Zeitgeist, you name it – and my point would be the same)
“I am a filmmaker AND a musician, and I can tell you that I have no problem disseminating my works free of charge. "
That’s fine – if you own your works outright, it’s your decision and you’re free to do whatever you want. However, unless you have the explicit permission of the rightsholder in your territory, who may have paid a great deal of money for the rights in question, it is NOT all right to disseminate other people’s works free of charge, either morally OR legally. And I suspect if you actually talked to a few people who run shoestring DVD labels, especially in the current economic climate, you’d hear some very different views to yours.
Incidentally, I think YouTube is a terrific answer to the “I need to sample before I buy” argument, and many legitimate rightsholders agree with me. The quality is relatively poor, so anyone who’s serious about the film will certainly be spurred on to buy the DVD, and so it’s a great promotional tool.
The problem with torrent sites is that in many cases you’re getting the film at DVD quality (or better) without paying any of the people responsible for achieving (and paying for) that quality. And if you don’t pay them a fair rate, those economic laws that Ten is so keen to bend to his own argument inescapably dictate that they won’t be able to do similar work in the future.
I work as a freelance DVD producer, and although I personally don’t get royalties (and neither am I reliant on commissions for a living: it’s a pleasant sideline to my day job), I’m nonetheless heavily dependent on the sales of my previous work for not only securing future commissions but also establishing the budget level of those commissions. Both my DVDs to date have compiled numerous short films by world-renowned animators, and I was given the budget to do a proper search for the best materials and do high-quality transfers (HD transfers in several cases). But this is expensive to do, and if sales don’t match expectations, cuts will inevitably have to be made. And that decision will be out of my hands.
TEN:–
You are a thief.
You have confused a “free good” with a “public good” and you’ve obviously not reached the part of your textbook (or more likely, Wikipedia) about the free rider problem (hopefully you’ll recognise that this is you). Please also read The Tragedy of the Commons.
You are confusing legality and morality. You live in a society with laws that people adhere to because it is moral to “do unto others”, that is, I won’t steal from you if you don’t steal from me. We agree to abide by the laws of a society in order to reap the benefits of it, and therefore not abiding by the laws is a transgression of morality. This is the principle of Social Contract Theory put forward by thinkers much smarter than you. Not agreeing with the law, or thinking the law is not morally right, does not give you any right to break the law, unless you want to leave the society, which, judging by your lack of respect for your common man, may work out better for you. I’m guessing you don’t tip wait staff either, because after all, it’s not worth anything right? Your ideas about value are truly puerile and certainly not those of someone with any grasp of the importance of aesthetics, that is, an artist. You are the opposite of an artist, you are someone who makes the world a more ugly place.
The filmmakers you mentioned probably didn’t sit around thinking about their royalty cheques (that’s how it’s spelt btw) but they also didn’t eat air and pay their rent with imagination. You call yourself a filmmaker, but I know for a fact that you’re a bad one — a good filmmaker recognises that many people work very hard on a film and they deserve money for their efforts.
I think we’d all be a little better off if you did not visit this website, there is no place for someone with your lack of morals or respect for cinema. Perhaps this thread could be a “Hall of Shame” of sorts so the rest of us can see those who truly respect cinema and filmmakers, and those who don’t; the first names: JOSEPH K., TEN.
Piracy is in fact driving into the ground the very companies that pirates rely upon to bring interesting and desirable content to the digital home market. Good luck downloading an untelecined 35mm to your hard-drive…someone (probably a company much smaller than you imagined working on a much more limited budget than you imagined) had to pay for that somewhere, and they decided it was do-able by calculating that you would chip in for it on some level.
Don’t get me wrong…the entire business model of the whole entertainment world has to and will change due to the vast logistical and ideological differences brought about by the switch from analog to digital, but don’t pretend to be a victim of big corporations trying to pull over a fast one on you (okay, the trend towards encouraging double-dipping is undeniably lame, but then again, multiple suckers with too much sucky expendable cash are indeed born every minute…). Please note that between recession and piracy, I very much doubt Criterion will ever release anything packaged as lavishly as MISHIMA again. “Well, that was nice. But it’s time to cut back.” Next it might be extras, less likely quality of transfers, but possibly number of releases, etc, etc… And Criterion’s far and away most financially established of the labor-of-love labels (yes, I include them in there even if they’re a giant because they really go above and beyond for movies they dig).
I find nothing wrong with the gray market. If an obscure film that I’ve read about has disappeared from view, is considered out-of-print, whether it is because a studio feels that there is no interest (early hollywood Douglas Sirk [SHOCKPROOF, THUNDER ON THE HILL] or Samuel Fuller [PARK ROW, THE CRIMSON KIMONO]) or some arcane copyfight (i.e. Allen Klein and Jodorowsky having religious and accounting disagreements about EL TOPO until last year], I’ll pay someone $5-10 to burn me a DVD-R of a slightly blurry copy in order to see what I’m missing. I’ll find a torrent, download it and feel no qualms, because no one is pandering to my niche. I’ll go dig it up myself with a little ingenuity. This process is fun. I prefer this to being spoonfed which works are considered major by a studio or dvd distributor, because they just might not rank artistic merit or entertainment as a deciding metric, and are looking at their bottom line (as they should), or just concealing a film out of habit because some producer no one remembers had a hissy fit and consigned the film to neglect.
Plenty of films are neglected for a great reason: they suck. Some are neglected for obscure reasons that no one remembers. Perhaps the director was a fiercely independent asshole who rubbed everyone else the wrong way, or the films were ahead of their time. Some lost films are stupendously wonderful. I still want to see the missing/lost films after I’ve exhausted the R1/R2/VHS/film festival/cinematheque catalogues of neglected directors, because I’m an obsessive completist, because I want to know for sure that I’d mined that filmography completely and experienced the body of work by a particular artist (cinematographer, director, actor, etc). Where do you think distributors pull early 20th century films from tiny countries out of? Thin air? Their childhood when they were -35?
Granted, this process results in me watching crap more often than not. But it is worth it, when I find a rough diamond, like MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION or WHITE DOG years before they made it to Criterion. I pay Criterion because I can now throw out my blurry copy with occasional tracking signatures for a color-corrected copy, and enjoy the film as close as humanly possible to seeing it as it was meant to be seen. This is the service Criterion is actually selling as I see it. But, I wasn’t going to wait a dozen years for Criterion to secure the rights, pay everyone, restore the copy, and finally distribute the film, before I saw MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION for the first time. I’m impatient. I have some free time and could die at any moment, why not see it if I can get it and no one thinks a buck can be made off my viewing it for at least a few years?
How do you think Criterion selects some films? I’m sure they occasionally look out into the gray market in order to see what films people wish were restored and available, and figure this in with their calculus of importance and nostalgia, copyrights that are for sale and that can easily be obtained, and those works worth obtaining and disseminating within in their budget and capacity as restorative curators.
“Piracy” isn’t my go-to strategy; it’s for when all else fails. Also, piracy currently describes the actions within Somali shipping lanes, and formerly, peglegs and Davey Jones. It is biased hyperbole. To be more accurate, and without shrieking, one could calmly say: “digital copying.”
Digital copying, because you don’t want to pay a $4-6 rental fee or $15-30 to buy, is wrong. And yet, entertainment is the first thing people cut out of their budgets when they don’t have income to spare. Libraries have long waits for DVDs or don’t carry French films for silly reasons like the feature topless ladies, have no violence, and no clear MPAA ratings. The problem is that 1) digital copying is works better and more easily than plodding institutions that are admittedly trying their best, 2) functions better than institutions that seek to restrict the flow of products so that they can capitalize on that restriction, and 3) there are so many works not being offered through any other conduit.
Digital copying for preservation, or for viewing works that are neglected for decades because no one cares for whatever reason, is great by me.
In the big picture piracy is obviously bad for the films you love. I might indulge in it for the odd TV show I missed or one of those films that can’t be purchased in my region, but I still buy DVDs like they’re crack. The thing is that piracy is here and the film industry has to adjust, whether it’s fair or not. I think Criterion is on the right track, as their DVD/BluRays are such a superior experience to just a poor quality pirated rip, that I would never think twice about choosing the Criterion release over the pirated release – or even the legit $5 bin DVD that was released by another studio for that matter. Heck, I bought “Rules of the Game” for $40 and it’s in PUBLIC DOMAIN!
But the rest of the movie industry still has to do something. I was able to tape VHS movies off my TV 20 years ago, so the industry evolved movies into blockbusters that “must” be seen on the big screen. Now, in the 2000s, I can watch movies on my own big screen in my own house (without some ass holes yapping around me either), and even for free if I wanted to pirate or tivo them. So what can they do to convince me to leave the comfort of my living room? 3D technology? Bigger effects? Shut up those gabby bastards in the audience? Who knows? If I did, I’d be working at Warner Bros or something.
I find nothing wrong with the gray market. If an obscure film that I’ve read about has disappeared from view, is considered out-of-print, whether it is because a studio feels that there is no interest (early hollywood Douglas Sirk [SHOCKPROOF, THUNDER ON THE HILL] or Samuel Fuller [PARK ROW, THE CRIMSON KIMONO]) or some arcane copyfight (i.e. Allen Klein and Jodorowsky having religious and accounting disagreements about EL TOPO until last year], I’ll pay someone $5-10 to burn me a DVD-R of a slightly blurry copy in order to see what I’m missing. I’ll find a torrent, download it and feel no qualms, because no one is pandering to my niche.
OK, I have a lot more sympathy with your position than I do with Josef K’s or Ten’s, because it is at least based on an intelligent awareness of how things actually operate, as opposed to the idiotic “I support the filmmakers, not the industry” argument (as though the two were mutually exclusive) – not least because it’s based on the assumption that if a better version came out, you’d buy it. It’s also absolutely undeniable that film collectors have done invaluable work in the past by, albeit inadvertently, preserving either the only or the best copy of something that’s been allowed to vanish (as the BBC has discovered many, many times when trying to reconstitute old Doctor Who episodes after they shortsightedly wiped the master tapes in the 1960s).
But I do get a little suspicious of references to “institutions that seek to restrict the flow of products so that they can capitalise on that restriction”, because unless you’re actually privy to their internal meetings, memos and emails, you simply don’t know what the reason is.
For instance, the BFI’s Jan Svankmajer shorts collection took three-and-a-half years to produce, if dated from the initial January 2004 meeting to the final June 2007 release – and it took that long for the simple reason that tracking down decent masters of all 26 shorts (plus a further six extras) was an incredibly involved process that involved complex rights negotiations (i.e. determining who got what share) and about a dozen rightsholders based in six countries. There was no question of “restricting the flow” – but for obvious reasons we had to secure the distribution rights before greenlighting the project (which inevitably prevented others from releasing the films, at least in Britain), but we didn’t want to release the end result until we got it right. And just to put this in perspective, the final piece of the jigsaw only fell into place in late March 2007 (it was a music rights issue that took ages to resolve), pretty much the last possible moment – I was worried we might have to leave it out, which would have been a crying shame given that I’d set my heart on a genuinely complete edition.
Now in this case there’s no “capitalising on that restriction” whatsoever. In fact, the situation was the exact opposite – we arguably lost money in the long run by taking so long to get it right, as the rights clock starts ticking from the moment the contract is signed, which in some cases was years before the final DVDs came out (I also hoped that the set would contain rather more DVD premieres than turned out to be the case, since Kino released its own Svankmajer volumes while ours were still in development). But how could you tell the difference between that situation and someone deliberately keeping a film out of circulation?
@ Kevin Salyers
re: “The other way I use is called “importing”. And if it’s not available elsewhere I have another method called “waiting” and possibly “complaining”.”
I agree with importing, and yet there are hackneyed attempts at region encoding that have to be overcome. Some definitely argue that one shouldn’t buy a region-free player, or discover the code to multi-region your own player. Why was this pathetic attempt made to restrict films that are enjoyed and only distributed across the pond (i.e. KES, early Kaurismaki, THE AFRICAN QUEEN, JOHNNY GUITAR, VERBOTEN!, SIGN OF THE PAGAN, etc)? I’m paying for the British/German/French/Japanese DVD, the technical constraints can easily be overcome, and yet I shouldn’t watch a film that I purchased and now should have every right to?! But that is a digression, definitely out of the scope of what you were arguing, and we agree on that point.
But complaining? To who? The video store clerk who makes $7/hr and has no say in film distribution? Studios that are busy making other films, and don’t care until they can brick that film with 7 more they all-but-forgot-about in a badly encoded best of box set with absolutely no attempts at restoration and release in the UK (i.e. DIRECTED BY DOUGLAS SIRK R2)? Distributors who are busy buying according to other legal and financial considerations?
Waiting is fine. But if the wait is extended over years, digital copies of old films/tv shows if available are a logical, morally unobjectionable choice.
This makes me think of a TWIN PEAKS anecdote. Do you know why previous boxed version of TWIN PEAKS didn’t include the pilot? Because the rights holders had no idea that they were the rights holders, and everyone did without for years, because no one could convince the studio, before the advent of the internet, that they were indeed the holders of those rights and furthermore that there was a market clamoring for a complete box set. So the previous boxset distributors could neither beg, borrow, buy, or trade for the rights to the first episode of a series, and released incomplete “Complete” versions. True fans had to trade the Pilot VHS that was put out by some accident of fate or troll obscure video stores for a forgotten copy of said tape. Most TV on DVD was like this until very recently (i.e. PERFECT STRANGERS). It is changing for the better as distributors are embracing technology that has been around for years waiting for the technology to improve and the institution to evolve enough to use it cheaply and effectively. Until studios make a good go of digital distribution/decent restoration, how else can one see HERMANN’S HEAD, GET A LIFE, BREWSTER MCCLOUD, SONG OF THE SOUTH, TWILIGHT OF THE COCKROACHES, MACUNAIMA, WORLD OF WIRES, PARK ROW?
I agree with importing. But complaining? To who? The video store clerk who makes $7/hr and has no say in film distribution? Studios that are busy making other films, and don’t care until they can brick that film with 7 more they all-but-forgot-about in a badly encoded best of box set with absolutely no attempts at restoration? Distributors who are busy buying according to other legal and financial considerations?
Actually, I wrote that, so I’ll respond: by “complaining” I mean kicking up a fuss in general about a film’s unavailability. Even if you don’t have a print platform, there are lots of online outlets for awareness-raising, including forums like these. And in fact this awareness-raising is exactly the sort of thing that’s often necessary, as I’m more than familiar with the rightsholder-not-being-aware-of-actually-being-the-rightsholder situation that you describe.
A good current example of a film whose unavailability has been widely publicised is Ken Russell’s The Devils. It is ludicrous that there isn’t a decent DVD available of this anywhere, and doubly worse that the film has never been shown in the US in anything close to the form that Russell intended – even though it had already lost 90 seconds to the British censor (not including material cut prior to official submission), Warner Bros in the US hacked out several more minutes, rendering some scenes borderline incomprehensible.
And what makes it particularly ridiculous is that thanks to the efforts of the critic Mark Kermode, all the missing footage (including the stuff that was removed on informal advice before the final cut was completed, such as the notorious “rape of Christ” scene) has now been put back in the film – and by the original editor Michael Bradsell with Russell’s enthusiastic approval, so it’s an absolutely official unexpurgated director’s cut. This was screened in London in November 2004, and I count myself very lucky that I was in the audience, since it’s barely been seen since.
What’s doubly ridiculous is that apparently Warner Bros UK was quite keen to release the film on the UK market, and even recorded a commentary with Russell shortly after the screening – and if they secured the rights to Kermode’s hour-long documentary ‘Hell On Earth’, they’d have a superb special edition right there with minimal effort. But then they got cold feet, probably thanks to pressure from the US parent. The problem is that the film doesn’t stand a cat in hell’s chance of getting an R rating (and nor should it: I absolutely wouldn’t want kids seeing this film for all sorts of reasons), and it’s not just the NC-17 that’s a problem, it’s the religious material.
In my (and Russell’s, and the film’s) native Britain, this absolutely isn’t a problem: Britain is a largely secular state, and in any case the film is primarily about the political exploitation of religious belief rather than a mockery of religious belief per se (there was a spokesman from the BBFC – the British counterpart to the MPAA – in the audience of the 2004 screening, and he confirmed that the film would have no problem getting an 18 certificate uncut: that’s like the NC-17, but without the same commercial stigma). But it’s a whole different ball game in America, and I can understand why they’re a lot warier over there – the fundamentalists would have an absolute field day with this film, especially if it was released by a Hollywood major.
To me, by far the most sensible course of action would be for Warner UK to release the film onto the UK market. Or, even better, for them to sublicense the film to an independent distributor who could take all the flak on their behalf – and I can think of several candidates who’d jump at the chance. But at the moment the film seems completely deadlocked.
@Michael Brooke
“Even if you don’t have a print platform, there are lots of online outlets for awareness-raising, including forums like these. And in fact this awareness-raising is exactly the sort of thing that’s often necessary, as I’m more than familiar with the rightsholder-not-being-aware-of-actually-being-the-rightsholder situation that you describe.”
I like you, sir. I see no discrepancy in our viewpoints.
“But how could you tell the difference between that situation and someone deliberately keeping a film out of circulation?”
I don’t know. You do, or at least, might. I’m a frustrated outsider who wants to see the film and has no idea what’s taking so long. You are a frustrated insider that knows more to the story and wants to distribute the film. Either way, the process can be annoying. Previously, I thought I could comfort myself by knowing the arcane reasons why films are delayed for release. But if I’m reading you right, I guess knowing the trivia doesn’t assuage the desire to get the product out on both sides. :-P
THE DEVILS is great. It was one of the first films I hunted down in the gray market, after watching and adoring the US VHS. When I later learned it was severely edited, that sent me on the search.
“But it’s a whole different ball game in America, and I can understand why they’re a lot warier over there – the fundamentalists would have an absolute field day with this film, especially if it was released by a Hollywood major.”
Yes.
so what about us in the “third” world?
when I was young and short on money I couldn’t afford to import a legal copy of a movie I would like to see… It was very difficult in the absence of proper information to even know what good films were there too choose… Do “first” world country filmmakers and moviegoers care if a guy in bolivia, nairobi or guatemala has seen some of the great Bergman films?… the ethical critic of piracy has a point in attacking the morally reprouchfully act of stealing other’s property… about the idiotic act of undermine the things you like…
I know piracy is a crappy thing to do… but the options are really lame down here… of course there’s the internet legal buying, but the cost of a single movie that you want to purchase increases almost 300% and 400% in taxes and shipment… I have a job but 200 dollars in a single movie is still a lot… so I should buy five or six movies a year?… Some films are never shown here, and I’m not talking about obscure unknown films, I’m talking about, say… Deconstructing harry block from woody allen… woody allen guys… I mean, what can a movie-lover do?
if movies cost me 30 40 dollars, or I can go see them for 5 bucks in a theathre, that’ll be great…. I’ll be a good boy…
But would you deny 5 people the pleasure of seeing in a comfy coach The seventh seal?… or A woman under the influence?
why? Because we can’t afford to pay 140 dollars for each movie we want to see?
the legal market here doesn’t offers much, the few people that try to offer more have to deal in huge prices even for rent
Just now some Delivery companys are starting to offer P.O. boxes in USA so you can reduce the costs, still, if your’e lucky you’ll be paying double…
I deeply respect filmmakers, I was absolutelly on the side of the writers in the last strike, I agree with authors that want to do ther films without signing abyecting contracts… because I want to see what they do…
the film distributors have no interest in this market…is too poor… piracy is something you do out of greed or need… yeah sure maybe need is how you star in greed, that’s a risk…
I need to see movies, pals… I’ll do whatever I have to do to see them… even pay a decent price for a decent copy…
I have to choose between a arguably moral behavior or seeing movies… What would you do? honestly…
@Rick Niño
I pay for movies because I can, and for quality distribution. The asking price is not absurd and delivery is assured.
If I couldn’t legally watch films because a method of distribution wasn’t available, I’d be in the position I am in when trying to find an uncut copy of something I might enjoy.
If no one is legally distributing in Colombia, then no one has legal jurisdiction to restrict illegal copies (until US studios sit on local agencies or Hollywood decides to stem even the flow of Adam Sandler movies as punishment for illegal distribution. In the long run, persistent illegal copying would delay legal distribution. In the short run, a cohort of people could see IN A LONELY PLACE. I’d say wait, but if that is most likely pointless, watch however you can).
Personally, I would watch however I could. Either renting, trolling movie channels/cinematheques, streaming, borrowing, buying copies in whatever condition wherever, and write about what I saw, tell people about the film, or show my blurry copy to them at my place. One has to generate interest before one can generate a market. But once a legal market exists, consumers should be purchasing in that market instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel and inadvertently sabotaging the distributors who grew out of, and have a symbiotic relationship with, that market
If a film is legally available, costs less than 1/10th of my paycheque (the exception being a boxset worth saving for), and I am getting exactly what I ask for, I buy.
Explore all legal options first, then the gray market. If all else fails and will continue to fail, watch however you can.
eric
Is buying pirated DVDs justified – due to state censorship? cost of original DVDs? love of films?
Just wondering what you think as not many people around the world can have access to great films at the local store or cinema…