wz42

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.

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

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

Kurt D

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

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 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

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Kurt D

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$t & 7h3 5uriou$ ...

Kurt D

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

You've done research for some educational books and you're saying that makes you 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 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

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

Holy crap- even Good Burger is out of print! Is nothing sacred??

Xiroteus

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

More on the subject: http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/...hp?f=4&t=10795

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

Superdaddy

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

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

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

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.

Kurt D

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 wait for a rerun, and we had to walk uphill 10 miles to watch it. Don't even get me started on movies. They had to frickin' re-release them!

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

Superdaddy

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

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

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

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).