Sting Shuts Down Illegal DVD Merchants

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:45 pm

missdupont wrote:The record business went down the tubes because of all the illegal downloading and file sharing

Let's try to keep the exaggerations under control. The main reason the record business went downhill is because they failed to adapt their outdated business model quickly enough to the public's changing preferred method of buying and listening to music. The majority of people no longer want to pay $19 for an album of songs on a plastic disc when they only want a couple of the songs on it and in digital format. Companies started getting the message, they started making the music legitimately available in this format, people are paying for it, and companies are making money from it.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:12 pm

boblipton wrote:I'm not saying that buying a bootleg dvd that you don't know is bootleg means you're going to spend the next 15 years to life in Atlanta. I'm saying that you should use appropriate language given that anything written here never goes away.

Bob

You said (or at least heavily implied) that purchasing bootleg DVDs is a criminal activity. It is not.

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:19 pm

It's receiving stolen goods.

Bob

ColemanShedman · Post by **ColemanShedman** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:40 pm

Nothing lasts forever, Bob. Except for maybe copyrights. I blame Sonny Bono.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:40 pm

boblipton wrote:It's receiving stolen goods.

Bob

Show me the statute where it says buying bootleg DVDs is considered receiving stolen goods. Show me an instance of anyone having been convicted of the crime of receipt of stolen goods for buying a bootleg DVD.

Doug Sulpy · Post by **Doug Sulpy** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:13 am

WaverBoy wrote:
missdupont wrote:The record business went down the tubes because of all the illegal downloading and file sharing
Let's try to keep the exaggerations under control. The main reason the record business went downhill is because they failed to adapt their outdated business model quickly enough to the public's changing preferred method of buying and listening to music. The majority of people no longer want to pay $19 for an album of songs on a plastic disc when they only want a couple of the songs on it and in digital format. Companies started getting the message, they started making the music legitimately available in this format, people are paying for it, and companies are making money from it.

Putting out music that doesn't suck would help, too.

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:28 am

Jim Reid wrote:It's really not that hard to find out if something has had a legal release. If you buy The Big Parade, unless it's on VHS or laserdisc, it's a bootleg.

I wasn't speaking only of today, mind you, but of the past as well (I wouldn't have brought up VHS in my post if I weren't cognizant of it happening in the past). Not easy to know in all cases. Also, too bootlegging of legal releases aka counterfeiting.

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:02 am

boblipton wrote:It's receiving stolen goods.

Bob

If I purchased something from a legit shop and it was later found to have been stolen, I'd be looking at prison by your reading. Which is the same as saying if I got a (good) counterfeit bill in change after shopping at a store and try to use it at another, more diligent store, and it is then discovered to be counterfeit, I would be guilty of passing counterfeit money and looking at federal time. I couldn't even argue that the store was responsible, I did not perform due diligence and am thus deemed guilty. Nice world you live in. Everyone cowering in fear, afraid of even incidental contact with anyone else for fear they may break a law. I am not constructing a strawman, just taking your stance to its logical conclusion since all laws must be obeyed. Unless of course you consider copyright law the only one worth enforcing. I am pitching this strong, but sometimes people don't see the consequences of the position they hold. Even me sometimes.

You really should read about how how many laws the average law-abiding American break in a year. Even federal felonies.

Apologies to all for being tardy in responding, but I had not been able to be online much since last weekend.

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:10 am

I'm not sure that's the logical conclusion. Having a $20 bill is something people do every day. If you get caught using a counterfeit bill, it's doubtful you would be in trouble, other than losing the $20.

Any DVD of a film made from 1923 on is potenially a bootleg, especially if it's a major studio film. These days on the internet it's not difficult to find a film's copyright status.

ColemanShedman · Post by **ColemanShedman** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:35 am

Jim, I work in IT support. I know people making six figures who can barely turn a computer on and you expect them to find out copyright status on the internet? The average person doesn't even think of that kind of stuff.

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:59 pm

I can understand people who don't know buying bootlegs, but anyone who has heard this discussion and still buys bootlegs can not be excused.

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:47 pm

Gotta get the titles wherever I can!!

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:49 pm

Jim Reid wrote:I'm not sure that's the logical conclusion. Having a $20 bill is something people do every day. If you get caught using a counterfeit bill, it's doubtful you would be in trouble, other than losing the $20.

Any DVD of a film made from 1923 on is potenially a bootleg, especially if it's a major studio film. These days on the internet it's not difficult to find a film's copyright status.

If the law were enforced the way Bob wished it to be, then it would not matter in the least if one passed the bill innocently. It would still be attempted passing of a counterfeit bill. That is the standard Bob is promulgating. If one cannot be considered a victim of a crime for unwittingly buying a bootleg, face it, all bets are off. We are sometimes not in a position to check if something's bootleg or not - buying in a brick-and-mortar store for instance. I still go to them and make good faith purchases. Even online is dodgy and I think some here forget that a lot of people do not have either the requisite skills or the basic knowledge to check. They see an online store, they buy, not even thinking twice. You cannot use yourself as a standard purchaser of classic films. I can't, either. There have been boots in retail stores and even on Amazon. It happens, even if rare.

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:39 pm

mndean wrote:
Jim Reid wrote:I'm not sure that's the logical conclusion. Having a $20 bill is something people do every day. If you get caught using a counterfeit bill, it's doubtful you would be in trouble, other than losing the $20.

Any DVD of a film made from 1923 on is potenially a bootleg, especially if it's a major studio film. These days on the internet it's not difficult to find a film's copyright status.
If the law were enforced the way Bob wished it to be, then it would not matter in the least if one passed the bill innocently. It would still be attempted passing of a counterfeit bill. That is the standard Bob is promulgating. If one cannot be considered a victim of a crime for unwittingly buying a bootleg, face it, all bets are off. We are sometimes not in a position to check if something's bootleg or not - buying in a brick-and-mortar store for instance. I still go to them and make good faith purchases. Even online is dodgy and I think some here forget that a lot of people do not have either the requisite skills or the basic knowledge to check. They see an online store, they buy, not even thinking twice. You cannot use yourself as a standard purchaser of classic films. I can't, either. There have been boots in retail stores and even on Amazon. It happens, even if rare.

You seem to be under the impression that I wish to throw you in jail. I don't. This is not how the law -- not the bill, but the law is written. It is a bad law. The fact that it is not interpreted that way is besides the point. RIAA has been pushing for a tough reading of the bill and taking out a lot of young idiots who might have been better off if they didn't insist that they couldn't be jailed for that.

The punchline is "But counselor, I'm calling from jail."

If you wish to put yourself at risk in the confident expectation that things will always be as they are, going right ahead. Just don't tell others that it can't possibly happen here.

Bob

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:07 pm

boblipton wrote:
mndean wrote:
Jim Reid wrote:I'm not sure that's the logical conclusion. Having a $20 bill is something people do every day. If you get caught using a counterfeit bill, it's doubtful you would be in trouble, other than losing the $20.

Any DVD of a film made from 1923 on is potenially a bootleg, especially if it's a major studio film. These days on the internet it's not difficult to find a film's copyright status.
If the law were enforced the way Bob wished it to be, then it would not matter in the least if one passed the bill innocently. It would still be attempted passing of a counterfeit bill. That is the standard Bob is promulgating. If one cannot be considered a victim of a crime for unwittingly buying a bootleg, face it, all bets are off. We are sometimes not in a position to check if something's bootleg or not - buying in a brick-and-mortar store for instance. I still go to them and make good faith purchases. Even online is dodgy and I think some here forget that a lot of people do not have either the requisite skills or the basic knowledge to check. They see an online store, they buy, not even thinking twice. You cannot use yourself as a standard purchaser of classic films. I can't, either. There have been boots in retail stores and even on Amazon. It happens, even if rare.
You seem to be under the impression that I wish to throw you in jail. I don't. This is not how the law -- not the bill, but the law is written. It is a bad law. The fact that it is not interpreted that way is besides the point. RIAA has been pushing for a tough reading of the bill and taking out a lot of young idiots who might have been better off if they didn't insist that they couldn't be jailed for that.

The punchline is "But counselor, I'm calling from jail."

If you wish to put yourself at risk in the confident expectation that things will always be as they are, going right ahead. Just don't tell others that it can't possibly happen here.

Bob

Did I ever write that this was about me? Can I not take a stance for other, less knowledgeable folk? It's called putting yourself in another's shoes if you're unfamiliar. Average individuals are targeted because they are defenseless, legally speaking. I am writing for them rather than me.

I do a small part in trying to keep the IA free of copyrighted material. Most who upload copyrighted films are ignorant, a few are likely not. Whether those who do it knowingly are cretins or false-flag uploaders of copyrighted material I could not tell you.

I agree with you about the bad laws. I believe that every copyright law (and patent law, come to that) since 1976 (yes, even that one - the law needed changing but not as drastic as was put into force) has not been in the public interest, and that the owners of said copyrights and patents and their lobbyists/writers of those laws are succeeding along with others in creating a future of nothing but perpetual revenue extraction for even what should be in the public domain. They want a world where there is no risk and maximal returns for a miniscule investment. The politicians have been amply paid for not just ignoring, but also harming the public interest in these matters.

Bob, I leave you the last word in this debate and apologize if I was too contentious. Thanks.

moglia · Post by **moglia** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:29 am

boblipton wrote:It's receiving stolen goods.

Bob

Totally Wrong. Do research before presenting your opinion as a factual representation of US law. Remember the "Internet is a public place and that records never go away here"

milefilms · Post by **milefilms** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:03 pm

Back from the Il Cinema Ritrovato (had a wonderful time) and somewhat surprised that this conversation has taken a turn for the worse.

1) Legal or not, it seems there's a lack of morality that's gone shockingly public. (One thing I learned, is that despite all the kvetching about Sonny Bono and the lack of public domain, the USA is actually the only Western country that recognizes public domain. The archives around the world would LOVE to distribute some films, but they can't because of their country's laws. So one could easily count our blessings rather than the failures...)

2) The point was -- that illegal sales and downloads have hurt the availability of legal and quality releases. I still stand by that.

That said, it was wonderful to see in Bologna at the Fair just how many new releases are still coming out around the world. I got the new Dreyer blu-ray and Dante's Inferno from 1911 Italy among others.

ymmv · Post by **ymmv** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:08 pm

milefilms wrote:Back from the Il Cinema Ritrovato (had a wonderful time) and somewhat surprised that this conversation has taken a turn for the worse.

1) Legal or not, it seems there's a lack of morality that's gone shockingly public. (One thing I learned, is that despite all the kvetching about Sonny Bono and the lack of public domain, the USA is actually the only Western country that recognizes public domain. The archives around the world would LOVE to distribute some films, but they can't because of their country's laws. So one could easily count our blessings rather than the failures...)

US only country that recognizes PD? Foreign archives can't release movies because their own PD laws are stricter than in the US? I find that a bit hard to believe. Could you name a few examples where this was indeed the case?

milefilms · Post by **milefilms** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:34 pm

ymmv wrote:US only country that recognizes PD? Foreign archives can't release movies because their own PD laws are stricter than in the US? I find that a bit hard to believe. Could you name a few examples where this was indeed the case?

First, I don't write unless I mean it. And as a distributor for films from foreign archives and a board member of AMIA, I'm involved with a lot of conversations on exactly this matter.

But example number 1. An archive on the European mainland has a pre-1923 American film with a fairly big star which is obviously public domain, but since it was produced by an American studio that still exists and, they will not bring it out themselves. Since we are currently in discussion for it, I can't get into more detail.

Second, even though an indie director has been dead for more than the required 70 years (75? The conversation included wine), the British Film Institute felt that they could not release a certain film unless they could clear the rights.

Third, the Danish archive is clearing rights for films made in the 1910s.

I'm sure I could go on, but jet lag is kicking in and I'm catching up on this week's television.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:08 pm

Michael O'Regan wrote:Gotta get the titles wherever I can!!

I appreciate and understand what people are trying to say, but sorry I'm of the same mindset as Michael. If someone has a copy of say THE WANDERER, BLONDE OR BRUNETTE, or CHILDREN OF DIVORCE, I'm going to try and obtain a copy for myself any way that I can. Because I know those titles will never, ever get an official release, or at any rate are extremely unlikely to. Plus in my mind, my obtaining a copy of said movies, hurts no body nowhere. It isn't costing anyone not one red cent. It certainly isn't costing people their jobs. Just today someone I have never talked to before asked me about CHILDREN OF DIVORCE in an E-mail I have had hundreds of people ask me where they could find a copy over just the last two or three years alone. I have never seen a copy anywhere of this movie in any sort of video format. Apparently, no one else has either? That is why they are still looking.

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:40 pm

Gagman 66 wrote:Plus in my mind, my obtaining a copy of said movies, hurts no body nowhere. It isn't costing anyone not one red cent. It certainly isn't costing people their jobs.

Well, you are wrong and you're tone deaf. You just heard a very respected man who has sacrificed to bring us silent classics on DVD. What he said was that pirated videos do cause films to not be released in decent good quality versions. But you say well, I'm going to buy them anyway. You are supporting theft. Dennis is right. It's immoral.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:46 pm

boblipton wrote:
mndean wrote:
Jim Reid wrote:I'm not sure that's the logical conclusion. Having a $20 bill is something people do every day. If you get caught using a counterfeit bill, it's doubtful you would be in trouble, other than losing the $20.

Any DVD of a film made from 1923 on is potenially a bootleg, especially if it's a major studio film. These days on the internet it's not difficult to find a film's copyright status.
If the law were enforced the way Bob wished it to be, then it would not matter in the least if one passed the bill innocently. It would still be attempted passing of a counterfeit bill. That is the standard Bob is promulgating. If one cannot be considered a victim of a crime for unwittingly buying a bootleg, face it, all bets are off. We are sometimes not in a position to check if something's bootleg or not - buying in a brick-and-mortar store for instance. I still go to them and make good faith purchases. Even online is dodgy and I think some here forget that a lot of people do not have either the requisite skills or the basic knowledge to check. They see an online store, they buy, not even thinking twice. You cannot use yourself as a standard purchaser of classic films. I can't, either. There have been boots in retail stores and even on Amazon. It happens, even if rare.
You seem to be under the impression that I wish to throw you in jail. I don't. This is not how the law -- not the bill, but the law is written. It is a bad law. The fact that it is not interpreted that way is besides the point. RIAA has been pushing for a tough reading of the bill and taking out a lot of young idiots who might have been better off if they didn't insist that they couldn't be jailed for that.

The punchline is "But counselor, I'm calling from jail."

If you wish to put yourself at risk in the confident expectation that things will always be as they are, going right ahead. Just don't tell others that it can't possibly happen here.

Bob

Bob, you're flat-out wrong on this matter. Absolutely and completely 100% incorrect, and laughably over-the-top. Nobody has been convicted of a crime for purchasing a bootleg DVD, and nobody is going to be. Warning people that they are taking their freedom in their own hands when they (GASP) publicly admit to purchasing a bootleg DVD is melodrama so hokey it wouldn't pass muster on the 19th-century stage. You had better quit while you're behind.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:48 pm

I respect Denns very much, but even he can't get his mitts on CHILDREN OF DIVORCE. Therefore I am NOT wrong. Why are we arguing again? Now HER WILD OAT I might eventually see on TCM, or through Warner Archive I grant you. Providing I live long enough, and don't lose my vision which is not in good shape, and getting worse all the time. CHILDREN OF DIVORCE I sincerely doubt it. Best chance at the present time is as an extra on the WINGS DVD release. Why do you have to be right all the time? Hey everyone here has a bootleg of something! Admit it!

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:53 pm

Just bury that head in the sand. If there was ever a chance that someone at Paramouint would think about releasing any of their silents, they would surely consider that they would be up against a huge black market of pirated DVDs. I don't blame them for not releasing them. The market for any classic film is very small. By buying illegal copies, you insure that that market is getting smaller. Do the math.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:56 pm

What??? Where is the black market of Paramount titles? I sure haven't seen them? Give me an example? Explain yourself???? My apology but that is just a plain silly statement.

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:02 am

This is pointless. Forget it.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:21 am

Dennis,

I am amazed that the foreign copyright laws are even more complex and unreasonable than Domestic. Must admit this is something I was not generally aware of. Thanks for the info. Does this have anything to do with why Kino was not able to use the most recent BFI restoration of THE BLACK PIRATE for their December Blu-ray release?

silentmovies742 · Post by **silentmovies742** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:48 am

I really think that the original article was relating to current, modern films rather than films that are 90 years old that most people, sadly, don't care about. Despite many people's self-righteousness, I'm sure we have all been glad of Asian "releases" of silent or hard to find films in the past when they have not been accessible elsewhere. I don't know about the laws for copyright in such countries but they may well be more lenient on old films than elsewhere - I believe, from what I have just read, that copyright in China lasts for 50 years, for example. If it is wrong for us to import films from China, therefore, it is also wrong for people outside of Europe to import public domain CD releases which make the most of a similar law over here.

I shall hold my hands up and say I have been thankful for my copies of Wings and The CRowd, Rhapsody In Blue and a couple of others that I have bought through ebay from such dealers for a few pounds. Factory pressed, not the greatest quality, but will do nicely until something better comes along, thanks very much. We are talking of collecting silent films, for goodness sake. It's just as illegal to swap off-air copies (which we all do) as it is to buy/sell bootlegs.

silentmovies742 · Post by **silentmovies742** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:51 am

according to wikipedia (to trust or not to trust!), film copyright law in japan is for 70 years after the film was made so, again, all silent film is out of copyright over there.

Harold Aherne · Post by **Harold Aherne** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:31 am

Moderators, time for a lock. This is an area where people are going to think (and do) whatever they please, regardless of this or that side's arguments, and there's no good purpose in letting this board fill up with toxic posts over and over again. I'm fine with battling over which Moore brother was the best, or the relative merits of Skeets G., but the copyright subject is worn out.

-Harold