DVD Talk
Bringing out the Dead - OOP!! Doubles in Price Overnight! [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Bringing out the Dead - OOP!! Doubles in Price Overnight!


vdc530
02-01-12, 08:05 PM
With Scorsese going to the oscars again as a big contender I decided to look up some of the movies he made that I have yet to see, on Amazon. Both last night and today

Turns out "Bringing out the Dead" has jumped from $8.99 a copy to 20+ bucks overnight. Many sellers had it for under $10 bucks but now their all sold out. Both on Amazon and Ebay, the minimum price is $19.99 now. Other e-tailers don't seem to have it either most saying out-of-stock or back-ordered

Holy Crapola, I was going to purchase this last night but figured I'd wait. Now it's gone up 2X and some change!

2/13/12 Update: Since this thread has been created the price has jumped from $20 to $30!!! This is looking to be a big deal OOP title.

http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Out-Dead-Nicolas-Cage/dp/079216587X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1329128148&sr=8-2

crazychris88
02-01-12, 08:34 PM
thanks. I put my unopened copy up for 12.99 + $2.00 S+H

gp1086
02-01-12, 09:00 PM
Never checked this one out. May have to give it a watch.

I see some new and used versions for < $10 on ebay.

vdc530
02-01-12, 09:07 PM
From what I've heard over the years it's pretty damn good. Not only is it Scorsese but it's also the writer from Taxi Driver and Raging bull + the cinematographer from Casino, Aviator, Shutter Island and Hugo.

g
02-01-12, 09:13 PM
They had a ton of these at Big Lots a year or so ago.

vdc530
02-01-12, 09:44 PM
They had a ton of these at Big Lots a year or so ago.

LOL they probably did, but I think those days are over. More power to you if you find em

Alan Smithee
02-02-12, 03:49 PM
Fucking Paramount. Why don't they just license all their movies out to someone else who might actually want to sell them? I had to get one of their movies through illegal means since the DVD was out of print and going for ridiculous amounts.

smurr05
02-03-12, 06:29 AM
Never checked this one out. May have to give it a watch.

I see some new and used versions for < $10 on ebay.

Excellent film by the way!:D

dex14
02-03-12, 10:05 AM
Theres plenty of used prices for below 5 bucks. Who would even bother buying this new?

wz42
02-03-12, 11:14 AM
Fucking Paramount. Why don't they just license all their movies out to someone else who might actually want to sell them? I had to get one of their movies through illegal means since the DVD was out of print and going for ridiculous amounts.

Iirc Paramount and Disney were the last two backers of the old Circuit City Divx format before it folded in favour of the open DVD standard.

I'd be willing to bet that Paramount's wet dream is that nobody will ever be able to buy their movies again - only rent them via ala cart or Netflix type subscription.

Alan Smithee
02-03-12, 07:47 PM
Yeah- the movie I obtained in a manner not mentionable here was "The Big Bus"- I would have gladly paid retail price for the DVD if it were still out, but when I checked Amazon new copies were about $50 and used around $30 which is ridiculous for a used disc. They DO still have this movie on Amazon and Vudu however- for $9.99 I could "buy" it and watch it only on my TV (with less-than-DVD quality), and if I end up replacing this TV with one that doesn't have those services on it then I guess I'll be out of luck. (So I guess it was really wrong of me to get this movie in the way I did since I could have still paid for it, but 'buying' an online copy isn't an acceptable option.) There's a few out-of-print Paramount titles on Netflix, I don't know how much money studios make from those but I keep reading complaints from studios that their stuff gets "devalued" when it's on there.

wz42
02-03-12, 09:18 PM
Yeah- the movie I obtained in a manner not mentionable here was "The Big Bus"- I would have gladly paid retail price for the DVD if it were still out, but when I checked Amazon new copies were about $50 and used around $30 which is ridiculous for a used disc. They DO still have this movie on Amazon and Vudu however- for $9.99 I could "buy" it and watch it only on my TV (with less-than-DVD quality), and if I end up replacing this TV with one that doesn't have those services on it then I guess I'll be out of luck. (So I guess it was really wrong of me to get this movie in the way I did since I could have still paid for it, but 'buying' an online copy isn't an acceptable option.)

I could be wrong but I thought getting a movie through "other means" was legal *if* you owned the movie. I'm taking a "none of my business" agnostic view on "other means" for this convo but if I understand "other means" right that may be a loophole.

There's a few out-of-print Paramount titles on Netflix, I don't know how much money studios make from those but I keep reading complaints from studios that their stuff gets "devalued" when it's on there.

How much is the proper value for one of their titles according to the studios?

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/images/million-dollars-2.jpg

antspawn
02-04-12, 01:01 AM
I own a copy. Great movie. Been awhile I have not seen it. Might play it this weekend.

Silverscreenvid
02-04-12, 01:27 AM
. (So I guess it was really wrong of me to get this movie in the way I did since I could have still paid for it, but 'buying' an online copy isn't an acceptable option.)

Yes it was wrong of you. You stole it. And it didn't matter whether you could have paid for it or not. You stole it.

Paramount spent $32 million making that movie. They paid Martin Scorsese and Nicolas Cage and every single person on that set. They own the movie. They can decide how or if they're willing to sell it to you. The can sell it as a DVD or a BluRay or a VHS tape or on some version of downloadble media or just sit on it for as long as they want to try to build its value back. The next time you spend $32 million on something you can decide how to sell it too.

Some people apparently think that they have a right to determine what's a fair price for a movie (and that may be only a dollar or so), and if the studio won't sell it to them for that price (or won't offer them an "acceptable option" for buying it), they have a right to steal it. By that theory, I'm justified in breaking into the electronics store and taking that big screen that they wouldn't deal with me on the price last week. I doubt if you spent even $32 making something, you'd feel very happy if someone decided they would just take it if you didn't sell it to them for the price they wanted.

There's plenty of movies I felt were priced too high and I didn't buy them. There's others I would have bought but never got around to and they're now out of print. I would never justify taking one.

Legally, you're a thief. Morally, you're a thief. As a practical matter, you will probably get a way with it just because of the logistics involved. But that doesn't change the nature of what you've done.

And don't say it's a victimless crime or that studios have plenty of money. I work for a company that sells educational materials in an online downloadable form. We have to deal with people trying to bootleg our merchandise as well. If they steal and distribute enough copies, my company will be out of business and I'll be out of a job.

My Other Self
02-04-12, 01:31 AM
Who pissed in your Cheerios, Silverscreeen?

Xiroteus
02-04-12, 06:03 AM
By that theory, I'm justified in breaking into the electronics store and taking that big screen that they wouldn't deal with me on the price last week.

Not quite, it would be closer to going into a store while open and making a magical copy of that same television while leaving the original there. Right or wrong? Most likely on the wrong side, however it is still much closer to that.

wz42
02-04-12, 07:43 AM
Yes it was wrong of you. You stole it. And it didn't matter whether you could have paid for it or not. You stole it.

But what if someone legally bought the Amazon Unbox version and acquired a second copy via "other means" since he preferred the second format? Even burning them both to the same disc - would that still be stealing in your books?

Paramount spent $32 million making that movie. They paid Martin Scorsese and Nicolas Cage and every single person on that set. They own the movie. They can decide how or if they're willing to sell it to you. The can sell it as a DVD or a BluRay or a VHS tape or on some version of downloadble media or just sit on it for as long as they want to try to build its value back. The next time you spend $32 million on something you can decide how to sell it too.

By that logic whomever owns the Mona Lisa would be within their rights to set it on fire *if* they thought they could make more in one shot by selling the live burning of it as a PPV event instead of a small amount from the entry fee for each person paying to enter the musuem to see it.

Legally that may be right but morally it'd be criminal in my books.

There's plenty of movies I felt were priced too high and I didn't buy them. There's others I would have bought but never got around to and they're now out of print.

There we agree - I've passed on many titles I felt were over priced. Some I paid the price if I wanted it badly enough. However I made sure to counter that by making sure I paid vastly little for other casual purchases titles from that studio. Other "meh" titles, because the studio reamed me so much on a title I wanted, I simply passed on buying them all together.

Until this thread I didn't realize Paramount had abandoned the DVD/BR standard for most (all?) of their catalog.

Since I support the open nature of physical media that means it'll have to be a rare exception for me to buy *anything* from Paramount again.

Xiroteus
02-04-12, 09:25 AM
One issue that will never make sense are those who take issue with someone owning a movie or series that was NEVER released on any format. A company cannot lose money on something they have never sold. Plus millions of people have recorded programs from television.

Silverscreenvid
02-04-12, 10:33 AM
One issue that will never make sense are those who take issue with someone owning a movie or series that was NEVER released on any format. A company cannot lose money on something they have never sold. Plus millions of people have recorded programs from television.


A movie that hasn't been sold (yet) may be sold some day in some format. Every bootleg copy that gets distributed diminishes the eventual market for that movie.

Shout Factory is legally selling some movies and TV series they've licensed that a lot of people thought would never be released. Their sales have been hurt by bootleggers and those who felt they had a right to buy bootlegs because the movies and TV shows had "NEVER" been released.

You think that just because someone taking a copy doesn't remove the original from circulation makes it "right"? I work for a company that sells educational texts and training materials. I get paid to research and write those texts. Every time someone gets their hands on a bootleg (and it happens), we still "own" the original and can sell more copies of it. Except the person that has the bootleg got the value of it (the value of my and the other authors' months of research and work) by paying nothing and that's one less person in an admittedly small universe of people interested in this subject matter who won't be buying. If that happens enough times, we're out of business, I'm out of a job, and people who were buying our materials legally will no longer have access to a valuable resource.

But nobody gets hurt by a few bootlegs, do they?

Xiroteus
02-04-12, 10:56 AM
A movie that hasn't been sold (yet) may be sold some day in some format. Every bootleg copy that gets distributed diminishes the eventual market for that movie.

I shall use an example of a show like Journeyman and Perfect Strangers season three to eight. They do not current exist in any official format, been waiting for Perfect Strangers for years, and many people would say if they cannot bother to sell it they will find it from somewhere most likely some horrible tv edits that are twenty plus years old and would LOVE to have a official dvd release if they would ever bother to sell it.

Shout Factory is legally selling some movies and TV series they've licensed that a lot of people thought would never be released. Their sales have been hurt by bootleggers and those who felt they had a right to buy bootlegs because the movies and TV shows had "NEVER" been released.

And a lot of those people may have had those horrible bootlegs and were thrilled once they found out an official release was being made and went out and bought them.

You think that just because someone taking a copy doesn't remove the original from circulation makes it "right"?

Different then stealing the original, not right, when you get down to it no one has a right to take anything in any manner that has an official release, out of print or not, the fact is some just do not care, make it right? not really.

I work for a company that sells educational texts and training materials. I get paid to research and write those texts. Every time someone gets their hands on a bootleg (and it happens), we still "own" the original and can sell more copies of it. Except the person that has the bootleg got the value of it (the value of my and the other authors' months of research and work) by paying nothing and that's one less person in an admittedly small universe of people interested in this subject matter who won't be buying. If that happens enough times, we're out of business, I'm out of a job, and people who were buying our materials legally will no longer have access to a valuable resource.

A lot of these people would never purchase a copy anyway, make it right? No. However the biggest issue is someone uploading that copy for others to take that would have purchased it thus causing a possible lost sale. There is also the fact that many people and companies like to have control over their own content. Of course this will effect smaller companies long before it would effect larger ones.

But nobody gets hurt by a few bootlegs, do they?

Sometimes yes and other times not that much, really depends on several factors. This discussion is about damages, not about it being right as it is clearly not okay to take something that does not belong to you, digital or not.

wz42
02-04-12, 01:10 PM
A movie that hasn't been sold (yet) may be sold some day in some format. Every bootleg copy that gets distributed diminishes the eventual market for that movie.

Your sense of entitlement and arrogance is remarkable. You really only see it from those who think they're so special because they create content.

I ran into that sense of entitlement and arrogance at a campus radio station from independent artists when I was on the board.

The artist/content owner is god and the members of the audience are peons...simply a marionette to have it's strings pulled.

I see you ignored my point that, by your logic, the owner of the Mona Lisa should be able to set it on fire in a PPV event simply because they own it.

I'll assume that's because you think that but you know to admit it would make your position so repulsive to everyone else.


I work for a company that sells educational texts and training materials. I get paid to research and write those texts. Every time someone gets their hands on a bootleg (and it happens), we still "own" the original and can sell more copies of it. Except the person that has the bootleg got the value of it (the value of my and the other authors' months of research and work) by paying nothing and that's one less person in an admittedly small universe of people interested in this subject matter who won't be buying. If that happens enough times, we're out of business, I'm out of a job, and people who were buying our materials legally will no longer have access to a valuable resource.

That's the second time you mentioned that. You must be very special.

However frankly we don't care...everybody is losing their job or being placed in financial distress with pay cuts, downsizing, off shoring, cutting of benefits or the '08 financial collapse for their 401k over the last ~20 years or so.

Frankly instead of being pissed off that one person dares to enjoy the content you were part of creating without you controlling every facet of how they enjoy it I'd be more concerned that a blogger will start doing your job online for pennies on the dollar with Google Adwords.

Or that your research position will be off shored to India.

vdc530
02-04-12, 04:35 PM
Black Snake Moan Blu-ray....OOP Paramount release....Price skyrockets 3 fold and some change in 3 days time.....Whoa...just Whoa

Kurtie Dee
02-04-12, 05:18 PM
Your sense of entitlement and arrogance is remarkable. You really only see it from those who think they're so special because they create content.

That's the second time you mentioned that. You must be very special.

However frankly we don't care...
Frankly instead of being pissed off that one person dares to enjoy the content you were part of creating without you controlling every facet of how they enjoy it .

We should probably can the poorly employed rhetoric and dismissive attitude.

There's no mention that he "wants to control every facet" of how people enjoy content. To escalate the argument by twisting someone's words weakens your position.

Silverscreen just doesn't want people to steal his work, and he's arguing that stealing is a universal wrong, regardless of circumstance.

Now I must go and steal a loaf of bread for my starving baby. ;)

wz42
02-04-12, 05:29 PM
There's no mention that he "wants to control every facet" of how people enjoy content. To escalate the argument by twisting someone's words weakens your position.

If I misread his words I will be happy to issue a retraction however my understanding of this statement:

Paramount spent $32 million making that movie. They paid Martin Scorsese and Nicolas Cage and every single person on that set. They own the movie. They can decide how or if they're willing to sell it to you. The can sell it as a DVD or a BluRay or a VHS tape or on some version of downloadble media or just sit on it for as long as they want to try to build its value back. The next time you spend $32 million on something you can decide how to sell it too.

sounds to me like he wants to control every facet - up to and including only offering a VHS release...or none at all.

Kurtie Dee
02-04-12, 05:45 PM
It's true they have the right to distribute it in whatever format they want, but after you buy it, you can enjoy it any way you want, baby!-ptth-

wz42
02-04-12, 06:35 PM
It's true they have the right to distribute it in whatever format they want,

Sadly they do have that right. However I, as the consumer, have the right to decide what to buy based upon their decisions. Warner Bros. movies sell for a bargain price so I own many. Ditto for Sony TV shows (ultra cheap complete series sets).

Paramount has always been expensive and they seemed late in the game when DVDs first came out compared to other studios so I've just grabbed what I felt like I "needed".

Funny thing is, because of this, I suspect Paramount has made the least from me because of that. This action by them to torpedo much of the back catalog will only serve to decrease the money I give them.

but after you buy it, you can enjoy it any way you want, baby!-ptth-

As long as you own the orig copy I think that is legal in Canada and the US.

However in Australia I've read it's actually illegal to transcode even legally bought media.

Xiroteus
02-04-12, 06:43 PM
Now I must go and steal a loaf of bread for my starving baby.

Remember it is closer to making a magic copy of a loaf of bread. :D

Kurtie Dee
02-04-12, 06:46 PM
Yeah, I'd say Paramount probably isn't making very good choices from the consumer's standpoint.

But to Silverscreen's point, just because we don't like it doesn't mean we can use personal affront to justify pirating.

That said, obviously things are a changing fast and furious-like in the digital era. The gates are open ... but if someone grabbed a digital image and made a big-old high-quality giclee print of one of my paintings, to hang on their wall, it would give me pause.

wz42
02-04-12, 07:23 PM
But to Silverscreen's point, just because we don't like it doesn't mean we can use personal affront to justify pirating.

I never said otherwise. In fact earlier I said I'm taking an "agnostic" view on it for the purposes of the discussion.

The closest I've came to taking a side is by wondering if the OP bought the Unbox version of the movie and "acquired" a second version by "other means" to be able to play it on more devices and burned them both to the same disc if that'd still be piracy or legal under the law. I *think* it is but I'm not 100% sure.

However I do buy content and the great thing about paying for the content I consume is that it gives me a voice on what the media rights holder is doing.

I didn't like it when the RIAA sued a 12 year old girl (http://articles.cnn.com/2003-09-09/tech/music.swap.settlement_1_riaa-cary-sherman-kazaa?_s=PM:TECH) and, as a result, I serverely decreased buying content from them and, as a result, consuming their content.

I'll also never subscribe to a service like XM radio "all you can eat" plan since I know, even if I don't listen to the music, the RIAA will still get paid for it.

It's great to pay for something since if I don't like the content, distro method or the actions of the company I can boycott it.

Silverscreenvid
02-04-12, 07:33 PM
Yeah, I'd say Paramount probably isn't making very good choices from the consumer's standpoint.

But to Silverscreen's point, just because we don't like it doesn't mean we can use personal affront to justify pirating.

That said, obviously things are a changing fast and furious-like in the digital era. The gates are open ... but if someone grabbed a digital image and made a big-old high-quality giclee print of one of my paintings, to hang on their wall, it would give me pause.


Thanks there.

People who talk about the "nerve" of how some artists act have probably never created anything in their entire lives that anyone else wants to see or hear. Artists, whether it's the Beatles or some garage band, create their works and they own them. They have the right to sell them or not sell them, in whatever form they want, for whatever price they want. The copyright laws of the United States give them that right. If you take their content illegally, you have committed a crime under those same laws. It's those very same laws that prevent someone from walking into your house and taking your possessions as well.

Modern technology makes it easier to steal and tougher to protect intellectual property than it once was but it doesn't make theft legal. The movies that are in a company's catalogue are its assets. It might decide to sit on them for a short time or a long time. Obviously, by taking a film out of circulation for a while, demand rises and makes it more likely that people will pay for it at a later date (Disney has done that for years with their inventory, and Warner is going to do that with Harry Potter). People have no right to help themselves to something copyrighted that's not being distributed any more than they have a right to break into a theater to see a movie just because the show isn't sold out.

An author does have the right to control every facet of his work. There's a number of authors who refused to allow movies to be made of their works for various reasons. That doesn't give a studio a right to make the movie because the author "unfairly" withholds permission.

It's ironic that the people who claim they "love" the movies the most seem to feel they have the right to deprive others of a living making those same movies.

Silverscreenvid
02-04-12, 07:41 PM
Your sense of entitlement and arrogance is remarkable. You really only see it from those who think they're so special because they create content.

I ran into that sense of entitlement and arrogance at a campus radio station from independent artists when I was on the board.

The artist/content owner is god and the members of the audience are peons...simply a marionette to have it's strings pulled.

That's the second time you mentioned that. You must be very special.


I have created copyrighted books. Under the copyright laws of the United States, that makes me special, like the independent artists you apparently despise. It doesn't necessarily mean my books or their records are any good. What it does mean that we have the right to decide what we will do with those books and recordings. You aren't obliged to buy them. If we want to stay in business, we'd better sell them at a price people will pay. But if you don't buy them, then under the law, you do without, just the same as if you think a car is too expensive.

wz42
02-04-12, 08:17 PM
Modern technology makes it easier to steal and tougher to protect intellectual property than it once was but it doesn't make theft legal.

It also makes it easier for those who don't have such an uppity view of their creations to distribute it. Anything from music to comics to ebooks people can publish themselves. TV/movies isn't quite at that point yet but Louis C.K. does edit Louie himself on his Macbook Pro.

Speaking of Louis CK...someone who doesn't have a superiority complex over his audience he's put his most recent stand up act for sale online himself. Here's what he says:

This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video. They would have given you an encrypted and regionally restricted video of limited value, and they would have owned your private information for their own use. They would have withheld international availability indefinitely. This way, you only paid $5, you can use the video any way you want, and you can watch it in Dublin, whatever the city is in Belgium, or Dubai. I got paid nice, and I still own the video (as do you).
https://buy.louisck.net/news


I liked it so much I posted the sample Youtube video on his mainpage with a link to buy the thing.

I never said the artist should be grateful for the audience. However arrogance to them is something I wouldn't want to financially support. Therefore I'm loving buying Louis CK stuff and pass on so much more.

Obviously, by taking a film out of circulation for a while, demand rises and makes it more likely that people will pay for it at a later date (Disney has done that for years with their inventory, and Warner is going to do that with Harry Potter).

If that's the model Paramount wants to do with their catalog that's fine but that means, for me, I'll largely pass on buying anything from them. I never said Paramount doesn't have the right to do this. I did say I have the right to not buy their stuff because I don't like how they conduct themselves.

Just like I have the right to buy Louis CK stuff because I do like how he conducts himself.

An author does have the right to control every facet of his work. There's a number of authors who refused to allow movies to be made of their works for various reasons. That doesn't give a studio a right to make the movie because the author "unfairly" withholds permission.

Again I never said the author doesn't. However if I don't like that the author refuses to allow his work to be made into a movie I have the right never to buy any of his books.

It's ironic that the people who claim they "love" the movies the most seem to feel they have the right to deprive others of a living making those same movies.

Who said that? Besides, with the internet, we're seeing a democratization of creating art. I'm sure there were many, going all the way back to the Gutenberg press, who *could* have made brilliant work but didn't have the access.

As such there's more art than ever (and wonderfully so) therefore the consumer has many chances not to support the arrogant artists who think that they're special in favour of a blogger (or whomever) whose work I'll enjoy just as much.

People who talk about the "nerve" of how some artists act have probably never created anything in their entire lives that anyone else wants to see or hear.


Just a random insult with no facts to back that statement.

Under the copyright laws of the United States, that makes me special, like the independent artists you apparently despise.

I don't hate independent artists. I hate arrogant people who think they're special regardless of who they are.

And yes indie musicians who make fun of people who listen to major artists (one time I saw them do it to someone's face) and expects that a college radio station should play 0% popular music (despite being legally allowed to play up to 10%) and become openly hostile when you take a different view does qualify as that.

But if you don't buy them, then under the law, you do without, just the same as if you think a car is too expensive.

Do without? Whose doing without? If I don't like your arrogance there's plenty of blogs online I can read and enjoy just as much instead of your books.

Kurtie Dee
02-04-12, 08:23 PM
I never said otherwise. In fact earlier I said I'm taking an "agnostic" view on it for the purposes of the discussion.

D'oh! I was conflating your argument and that of Alan Smithee ..

That said, the RIAA has screwed things up so badly it's not even funny.

Ultimately, I think artists should have their own say in production and distribution of their work, for obvious reasons.

When there are no barriers to entry for the production of so-called professional art, and no-one wants to pay for it anyway, it all becomes crap, and you might say we will then get what we deserve.

Soon, our choice for music will be Justin Bieber, our choice for art will be Angry Birds, and our choice for movies will by 7h3 5a$t & 7h3 5uriou$ ...

Kurtie Dee
02-04-12, 08:30 PM
Sweet, I managed to reply to some comments before I knew they'd been posted!

I'm all for the 'democratization of art' but will once again say that you get what you pay for.

You like Louis C.K. because he can make a living at his art.

When we've been reduced to listening to comics who hone their art for an hour a night after getting off their part-time shift at McDonalds, it will become apparent that sometimes it's nice to reward someone for working hard, jumping through the hoops, etc.

Also, since when is it arrogant to value your own work?

wz42
02-04-12, 08:42 PM
D'oh! I was conflating your argument and that of Alan Smithee ..

No worries and LOL for the in relation to the discussion.

I actually don't support piracy...which is why if he wanted the divx version so much I mentioned buying the Amazon Unbox one as well and wondering if that'd be legal.

That said, the RIAA has screwed things up so badly it's not even funny.


Agreed. I still buy movies largely because the MPAA has been much ore reasonable (aka not suing children). Hell even the movie industry has to deal with the dicks from the music industry when trying to license music from TV shows for DVD releases.

That alone speaks volumes about how fucked up the RIAA is.

Ultimately, I think artists should have their own say in production and distribution of their work, for obvious reasons.

I agree tho often that control is really held by a multi-national corporation. That aside, for either the artist or corp, if they reach too far many will just stick their eyeballs elsewhere.

When there are no barriers to entry for the production of so-called professional art, and no-one wants to pay for it anyway, it all becomes crap, and you might say we will then get what we deserve.

Soon, our choice for music will be Justin Bieber, our choice for art will be Angry Birds, and our choice for movies will by 7h3 5a$t & 7h3 5uriou$ ...

Oh man I hope not. I suppose, ideally after the concept of user generated content matures, so will it's quality and the cream will rise to the top.

Then I could see them benefiting from it financially with things like T-shirt sales, concerts, buying the content on disc/iTunes (instead of watching it streamed), posters etc.

wz42
02-04-12, 08:53 PM
I'm all for the 'democratization of art' but will once again say that you get what you pay for.

I've been to amateur nights at comedy clubs. Some are horrible, some are wonderful but most are middle of the road.

You like Louis C.K. because he can make a living at his art.

Also, since when is it arrogant to value your own work?

Louis CK does make a living and that's great. But when you read how humbly and friendly he writes on his site I doubt he'd ever call himself special. Having value for your work (Louis CK is selling his stuff) and being uppity about it are two different things.

Just like that indie artist opening insulting someone to their face because they like top 40 music was doing I referenced seeing earlier.

When we've been reduced to listening to comics who hone their art for an hour a night after getting off their part-time shift at McDonalds, it will become apparent that sometimes it's nice to reward someone for working hard, jumping through the hoops, etc.

I disagree. If they only have an hour a night to work on their act instead of making 90 minutes of subpar content they could make 20 minutes of excellent work on par with Louis CK.

Upload that video to Youtube and, ideally, rinse and repeat for a few years and he'll develop enough of a following where he can tour professionally and bring an audience with him enabling him to move beyond that job at McDonalds.

If you're in NYC, LA, Boston or Chicago it's easy to get noticed. If you're in a tiny town in the middle of Iowa (and you can't afford to move to LA since you're working to pay the bills at McDonalds) Youtube gives you a chance you'd never have otherwise.

wz42
02-04-12, 09:17 PM
You've done research for some educational books and you're saying that makes you special.

I have created copyrighted books. Under the copyright laws of the United States, that makes me special

Woody Allen has made both some of the funniest and remarkable films humanity has been blessed with. And according to this DVDTalk review this is what he says about him and his work:

"It's not rocket science," Woody Allen says of what he does. "It's just storytelling, and you tell it. There's no big deal to it." Some might presume this to be false modesty, and it is hard to believe this brilliant director when he says "I've made about 40 films in my life, and so few of them turned out to be worth anything..."
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/53279/woody-allen-a-documentary/


It's this quiet humility which makes me proud to have bought and owned so many Woody Allen DVDs and to have been such a big fan of his throughout the years.

This is the kind of artist I'm ecstatic to pay to support.

Alan Smithee
02-05-12, 03:27 AM
Obviously, by taking a film out of circulation for a while, demand rises and makes it more likely that people will pay for it at a later date (Disney has done that for years with their inventory, and Warner is going to do that with Harry Potter).

With most of Paramount's titles though, they aren't taking them off the market because they're "special", it's because they don't think they'd been selling well enough. Sometimes this is done with titles that had been out hardly a year or so (like the Blu-Ray of Three Days of the Condor, which came out roughly 2 years ago and is already out of print!) They seem to have unrealistic expectations on how fast some of this stuff is going to sell (and if there's no demand for it, then why are some people now paying $50 or so for remaining copies??) I just watched "Bebe's Kids" on Netflix in its usual mediocre quality, looked up the DVD just for fun and it's going for more than $80!

Alan Smithee
02-05-12, 03:44 AM
Holy crap- even Good Burger is out of print! Is nothing sacred??

Xiroteus
02-05-12, 05:35 AM
Anyone run into many people that feel we should not even own something that has never been sold? That is a line I can see people not caring because it does not exist, no tapes, dvds, nothing so they cannot lose money on something they cannot bother to sell. And telling people you will just have to do without it and it may never be released is not going to work, they will just not care. If the show is older there is a good change any copies they have are horrible and would welcome an official release.

Alan Smithee
02-05-12, 07:10 AM
More on the subject: http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10795

"Paramount out of print dvds" filled in automatically when I started typing it in Google!

Superdaddy
02-05-12, 09:44 AM
Paramount has been yanking catalog titles out of print for some years now. It's nothing new. If you have any you treasure, hold onto them, because frankly I think more than a few will never hit another physical format, judging by the way they handle their library. This is supposedly Paramount's 100th anniversary, so maybe they'll re-release some, but I'm not holding my breath.

For those into BD, some "gems" are supposedly coming to that format later this year, and they've already surprised by putting out Wings, which had not been on DVD before in Region 1.

As for Bringing Out the Dead, which started the discussion, I don't agree with the oft-expressed opinion that it's lesser Scorsese. My wife (then girlfriend) and I saw it theatrically upon original release and both agreed afterward that it was excellent. Give it a try--if you can find it.

Texan26
02-05-12, 11:31 AM
It's ironic that the people who claim they "love" the movies the most seem to feel they have the right to deprive others of a living making those same movies.

Don't you buy used used DVDs? You have posted in the used blockbuster sales thread. It's legal but the people that made the movie don't make any extra movie since it was bought as new before. If people sold your copyright books used, you would not get paid again. If you are worried about the film makers getting their money, don't buy used DVDs and buy a new copy instead.

hilts
02-05-12, 11:47 AM
Your sense of entitlement and arrogance is remarkable. You really only see it from those who think they're so special because they create content.

This is hands-down the funniest thing I have read online in quite some time. Not too many things make me laugh out loud anymore. Thanks, dude. Damn shame you put it out there without being paid. You could have been special too.

Silverscreenvid, I don't know why you bother to reply to any of the silly stuff. You made you position clearly and intellegently with your first post. Theft is wrong, and word games from others trying to justify it does not change that.

Xiroteus
02-05-12, 11:56 AM
Theft is wrong, and word games from others trying to justify it does not change that.

Some people are not trying to justify stealing, just that there are different levels of theft, not everything is black and white, not all theft is equal, yet all theft is wrong.

Kurtie Dee
02-05-12, 12:30 PM
What interests me is what seems to be a new attitude that just because something exists, we should all have the 'right' to possess it whenever we want (and usually instantaneously).

Back when I was growing up, if we wanted to see a TV show again, we had to <i>wait for a rerun</i>, and we had to walk uphill 10 miles to watch it. Don't even get me started on movies. They had to frickin' <i>re-release</i> them!

You youngsters don't know how good you have it.

Superdaddy
02-05-12, 02:01 PM
Back when I was growing up, if we wanted to see a TV show again, we had to <i>wait for a rerun</i>, and we had to walk uphill 10 miles to watch it. Don't even get me started on movies. They had to frickin' <i>re-release</i> them!

You youngsters don't know how good you have it.

I was just telling my son this yesterday. He's six, and he sat there disbelieving while I told him there was no internet, no personal computers, no cell phones when I was a kid. Music was on these things called records (or tapes). You couldn't just play it off the computer. If you wanted to buy something, you went to a store, or ordered it over the telephone or through the mail!

And since he's already a confirmed DVD nut, thanks to me, I told him about having to wait for reruns if you wanted to see movies or TV shows again. No DVDs. I thought he was going to cry lol.

rbrown498
02-05-12, 04:20 PM
Every bootleg copy that gets distributed diminishes the eventual market for that movie.

I can't say that I fully agree with this statement.

Not that it's a bootleg, but in the mid-1990s I had recorded Dazed and Confused off of one of the pay channels to watch later. (That used to be called "timeshifting," for those old enough to remember those days.) I watched it a few days later and didn't think much of it, but I didn't erase the tape, as I had timeshifted another movie or two and hadn't watched them yet.

Fast-forward five years or so. While digging through a mountain of unlabeled tapes, I popped one into the VCR and, lo and behold, it was the Dazed and Confused tape. I thought that I'd give it another shot, and I wound up absolutely loving it the second time around. I went out the very next morning and bought the DVD.

Now, if I hadn't "bootlegged" Dazed and Confused, I wouldn't have purchased the DVD. So, my owning an "unauthorized" copy wound up creating a sale for Universal.

Is this situation the same for the general public? I doubt it. Most people are happy to have a copy of a film or television show at all, regardless of that copy's legality or even quality. But I do think that your statement above is a grossly oversimplified and partially incorrect statement of the problem.

rw2516
02-05-12, 05:39 PM
I can't say that I fully agree with this statement.

Not that it's a bootleg, but in the mid-1990s I had recorded Dazed and Confused off of one of the pay channels to watch later. (That used to be called "timeshifting," for those old enough to remember those days.) I watched it a few days later and didn't think much of it, but I didn't erase the tape, as I had timeshifted another movie or two and hadn't watched them yet.

Fast-forward five years or so. While digging through a mountain of unlabeled tapes, I popped one into the VCR and, lo and behold, it was the Dazed and Confused tape. I thought that I'd give it another shot, and I wound up absolutely loving it the second time around. I went out the very next morning and bought the DVD.

Now, if I hadn't "bootlegged" Dazed and Confused, I wouldn't have purchased the DVD. So, my owning an "unauthorized" copy wound up creating a sale for Universal.

Is this situation the same for the general public? I doubt it. Most people are happy to have a copy of a film or television show at all, regardless of that copy's legality or even quality. But I do think that your statement above is a grossly oversimplified and partially incorrect statement of the problem.

A distinction can be made over intent. Timeshifting to watch later is different than recording a movie or tv show with the intent of adding it to your permanent collection.
Example: Years ago, long before they were released on DVD I burned to dvd-r every episode of the tv show Combat! off Encore Action channel. I labeled each disc and made homemade covers. Later the show was released to DVD.

wz42
02-05-12, 10:10 PM
A distinction can be made over intent. Timeshifting to watch later is different than recording a movie or tv show with the intent of adding it to your permanent collection.

A distinction without a difference IMO since, as long as you're not circumventing the copyright flag, recording from TV is perfectly legal either way.

Back in the VHS days I acquired a huge collection of VHS recordings from channels that didn't censor or insert commercials (public broadcasters, pay movie channels) since I didn't see most pre-recorded tapes to be worth it (esp on a kids allowance).

Silverscreenvid
02-06-12, 01:56 AM
Don't you buy used used DVDs? You have posted in the used blockbuster sales thread. It's legal but the people that made the movie don't make any extra movie since it was bought as new before. If people sold your copyright books used, you would not get paid again. If you are worried about the film makers getting their money, don't buy used DVDs and buy a new copy instead.

The used DVD market, like the used book market, is going to be a fairly small section of the market. More important, they're legal under copyright law, which represents a compromise between the interests of authors and the public. We do lose some money, not because there's an active market for buying and selling our books used, but because some companies put them in their libraries, making them available to multiple employees. But when people do legally purchase used DVDs or books, at least the publisher made the profit on one sale initially. With bootlegs, there is no such profit.

As a practical matter, studios gain much more by having Blockbuster buy thousands of rental copies from them than they lose from having some people buy a used copy (often months after the movie is first released). What they lose off bootlegs is a total loss.

Silverscreenvid
02-06-12, 02:04 AM
A distinction can be made over intent. Timeshifting to watch later is different than recording a movie or tv show with the intent of adding it to your permanent collection.
Example: Years ago, long before they were released on DVD I burned to dvd-r every episode of the tv show Combat! off Encore Action channel. I labeled each disc and made homemade covers. Later the show was released to DVD.

The copyright laws are a compromise. For years, the maximum copyright was 56 years; now it's considerably longer. Congress and the courts balance the interests of authors and studios against the general public. To some extent, the exact boundaries of copyright law are arbitray. Time shifting is legal, no matter whether you watch something an hour later or years later, one time or 100 times. Selling recorded copyrighted materials is not.

rw2516
02-06-12, 06:17 AM
The copyright laws are a compromise. For years, the maximum copyright was 56 years; now it's considerably longer. Congress and the courts balance the interests of authors and studios against the general public. To some extent, the exact boundaries of copyright law are arbitray. Time shifting is legal, no matter whether you watch something an hour later or years later, one time or 100 times. Selling recorded copyrighted materials is not.

However, no distinction is made for the source of the copyrighted material. There is no seperate provision for dvds, cable, etc. Renting the DVD of Casablanca and copying it is the same as copying it off Turner Classic Movies under the copyright law. Either way you have made a copy of the movie.
The scary FBI warning on tapes and DVDs is nothing new, just a reference to sections 501 and 506 of the copyright law which have been around for decades before home video and is a blanket provision covering all copyrighted material and sources. There are no seperate provisions under the law distinguishing what source the material was copied from.

vdc530
02-10-12, 06:54 PM
Brace yourselves...Go to Amazon and look at how much World Trade Center on Blu-ray is going for.

Can you say ultra rare?

The Cow
02-10-12, 07:07 PM
Brace yourselves...Go to Amazon and look at how much World Trade Center on Blu-ray is going for.

Can you say ultra rare?

I see some sellers at about 10 bucks. :shrug:

vdc530
02-10-12, 07:16 PM
New? Where I'll buy some right now?

vdc530
02-13-12, 05:17 AM
All this talk about bootlegging hurting film studios is a load of shit. Of course it hurts them, but compared to the hundreds of millions they make it's barely scratching the surface. It's just corporations doing what corporations do best maximizing profits, anything that stands in the way of increasing profits must be dealt with. So they lobby for stuff like SOPA and what not.

Take a look at Bringing out the Dead on Amazon now...it went from $3 New to $10 New to $20 and now it's at $30!!! It jumped from $10 to $20 overnight and since this thread has been created from $20 to $30. Do you even know how many copies were being sold by amazon sellers under $25? More then 50! people are buying them at a jaw dropping rate and it's not even a well known title.

http://www.amazon.com/Bringing-Out-Dead-Nicolas-Cage/dp/079216587X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1329128148&sr=8-2

God damn this is turning out the be a great investment. Too bad I only bought 1 LOL

crazychris88
02-17-12, 12:29 PM
Ended up selling my unopened copy for $9.99 + 2.99 S+H on the bay. Not gonna miss this movie too much. I like it but I dont plan on watchin it anytime soon. I think I originally got this during a DeepDiscount BOGO for like $3.

Gizmo
02-18-12, 12:19 PM
Huh?

Lots of Bringing out of the Dead going for under $10 on eBay.

Oh, I get it. People are going by used prices on Amazon where retards put things up for insane prices and for some reason, people assume that's the real value.

Just because no one else has a copy of GI Jane on Blu-ray listed, and one idiot lists it for $50 does not mean it's the true "value". Are some of you guys actually believing this shit? Let me sell you some "rare" Blu-rays for $25 each. You can make a profit.

orangerunner
02-18-12, 02:30 PM
It's interesting reading all of the comments about piracy, everything from morally righteous standpoints to casual standpoints.

Copyright is not an easy black and white issue.

For instance, are you legally allowed to borrow your friends (legal) copy of a film and watch it by yourself? If you do, this causes the copyright holder to potentially lose a sale.

Is it only legal if you go over to your friends house and watch it at the same time together?

Is playing a copyrighted recorded song during a school Christmas show technically copyright theft as well? Is it considered "Fair Use"?

Are you guilty of copyright infringement by lip-synching to the Hall & Oates version of "Jingle Bell Rock"? Or was it just simply a lapse of judgement in musical taste when you were young? :)

The list can go on and on.

It's easy to get on ones righteous high-horse and declare theft but let's face it; we've all "stolen" content in one form or another by the letter of the law.

We're given tools like VCRs, PVRs and computers, whose primary function is to send and receive digital data. Big business has made a lot of money from technology and piracy will always be one of the trade-offs.

vdc530
02-18-12, 05:18 PM
Huh?

Lots of Bringing out of the Dead going for under $10 on eBay.

Oh, I get it. People are going by used prices on Amazon where retards put things up for insane prices and for some reason, people assume that's the real value.

Just because no one else has a copy of GI Jane on Blu-ray listed, and one idiot lists it for $50 does not mean it's the true "value". Are some of you guys actually believing this shit? Let me sell you some "rare" Blu-rays for $25 each. You can make a profit.

If someone has the last copy of GI Jane BD and someone buys it for $50 bucks then market value for that is $50 bucks. Just because you personally don't think something is worth that much doesn't mean it isn't for the rest of the world.

Star Wars E. 1 is selling for 30+ dollars on Amazon and it looks to be selling like hot cakes if the sales rank is to be believed. That means that DVD is worth 30+ dollars in it's current limited quantities.

Nick Danger
02-19-12, 12:04 PM
Woody Allen has made both some of the funniest and remarkable films humanity has been blessed with. And according to this DVDTalk review this is what he says about him and his work:

It's this quiet humility which makes me proud to have bought and owned so many Woody Allen DVDs and to have been such a big fan of his throughout the years.

This is the kind of artist I'm ecstatic to pay to support.

I've always been baffled by this sort of attitude. Do you like J.S. Bach and dislike Beethoven because Bach was a humble man and Beethoven was arrogant? I don't care what an artist is like in their personal life, I'm only interested in the art.

Texan26
02-20-12, 04:56 PM
I put this movie (60s DVD link (http://www.gohastings.com/catalog/product.jsp?productVariantId=7857878&sku=215290531&departmentName=MOVIE)) on my wish list at Gohastings. It was listed at $6.99 used and always out of stock. They now have it in stock but the price is now $79.98. I wonder how much they paid the person that sold it to them.