Sting Shuts Down Illegal DVD Merchants

silentmovies742 · Post by **silentmovies742** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:51 am

It's only worn out if you have been around on here long enough for it to be discussed. There is no requirement to comment on threads you are bored with/not interested in.

I would first like to make a point which seems to be forgotten often. The copyright laws of America do not hold true in most other countries, despite the fact that the majority of films we discuss on these boards are American. The country of origin has little or nothing to do with copyright laws. And there is nothing to say that one country's copyright laws are better or fairer than any other. It does seem very odd in this world of the United Nations that an international copyright system has not been implemented to make it standard throughout the world. But that is not the case at the moment, and there is nothing to stop us from importing a public domain release of, for example, The Wind from China (or Nigeria, or wherever) into a country where it is still in copyright.

What this has brought up is that copyright laws around the world vary greatly. In Britain, the copyright length on film is, I believe, 70 years after the death of a major contributor. Whatever that means. But going by the arguments we have heard here, the people of Britain should not be allowed to buy, for example, Alpha or Grapevine DVDs because the films are still in copyright here.

For music in most of Europe it is 50 years after the recording was made - meaning there are artists alive who are not getting royalties. There are pros and cons to the music law over here, with the pro being that some wonderful sets have been brought out in recent years - particularly in the jazz field - which contain recordings which would otherwise not be available. The four "le Grande Histoire Du Jazz" boxed sets from France are perhaps the greatest collection of pre-modern jazz ever to be released, for example. On the other hand, HMV can now stock 20 different Elvis CDs at £2.99 all of which contain the Loving You soundtrack in poor quality. Again, should Americans be stopped from importing those lovely jazz sets?

Going back to the original article, I still believe the morals surrounding this depends on what you do and dont buy. If The Crowd is available legally in many Asian countries as it is public domain there, then I see nothing wrong in importing it for our own use. If we want to see it, we don't really have any choice. And what of Grapevine, for example? If grapevine issue an edition of a film which is public domain, would that stop one of the major studios/Kino/Criterion from releasing their own edition from the original negatives. History shows us that this is not the case. For example Alpha video issued a very nice print of The Most Dangerous Game for a few dollars, but that didn't stop Criterion issuing it a few years later. But should we feel guilty for choosing the cheaper Alpha edition, or Grapevine edition. Of course not.

In many ways, the internet has caused this "problem". Without the internet it was difficult to find out what was and was not available in different countries - and a public domain release in China was unlikely to have been imported to America or elswehere by collectors.

Silent films are sold to collectors, and only to collectors - and we like to have the best version that is out there. We constantly upgrade our films when we get the chance through a new restoration, remastering or platform. Nosferatu, Potemkin, Metropolis, Sunrise etc have all been reissued on DVD and now blu-ray following restorations and we go out there and buy them again. The same goes for the Asian releases. If Wings came out on DVD in the west then I would be the first to buy it and take my asian copy to the charity shop. However, at the moment, it is better than nothing.

Should we really feel guilty about buying copies from whatever source available of the some best, and most important, motion pictures ever made? No. It's the studios who should feel guilty for not making available to the public some remarkable works of art nearly a decade and a half into the DVD era. HOWEVER, there is a great difference between buying a copy of The Crowd, Wings, The Wind etc and getting a cheap copy of the latest Harry Potter film.

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:33 am

Hey everyone here has a bootleg of something! Admit it!

This is the bottom line.

If you don't, you're missing out on some nice titles, unavailable by any other method.

ColemanShedman · Post by **ColemanShedman** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:45 am

Not everything that is illegal is immoral and vice versa. Slavery used to be legal. Did that make it moral? I personally don't think that buying a copy of a 90 year old movie that is not available legally is immoral. Now,buying a copy of a silent when it has a legitimate release just to save a few bucks...that would be.

Post by **silentfilm** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:47 am

I think we'll give this hot topic a rest for a few days. Everybody's mostly being civil, but there is not much new being added to the topic.

Post by **Danny Burk** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:08 pm

Getting back to Harold's post - as long as useful and valid discussion is being made in a reasonable manner, we'll keep the thread open. However, if it devolves into more "I want this!" vs "No, you can't have it!", I think all of us have had our fill of that conversation more than once or twice, and it will then be suitable to shut down the thread.

This issue flares up regularly enough that I have difficulty understanding why it hasn't sunk in yet. Disregarding for a moment what you do or don't believe about copyright situations, it's a fact that some folks have been warned by mods about their posts. Yet they pop up again and again. If it happens again, expect posts to be deleted without further warning.

Edit - I see that Bruce beat me to it while I was writing my post. This thread being locked or not, what I've said in my second paragraph still applies.