Studio 4K - The Italian Eureka?

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Pecker

(...)
With specific regard to this comment:

"Since none of the money goes into the investment of preserving these films, it would be great if would-be buyers think hard before even considering a purchase from these dubious sources."

This is a valid point, and I will not be buying any further titles from them where the legitimate release is available elsewhere.

However, had I not yet bought The Third Man I'd still be buying the Studio 4K version, for the simple reason that the fullest implication of the above doesn't really apply.

I've already bought the SC version, and if I buy a used copy of the Criterion version not a penny would go towards film restoration, either. Steve W

You seem to "forget" (or should I say conveniently ignore ?) that buying an illegal product IN EVERY case causes damage not only to the owner in any case but also the proper preservation of the elements for which money is needed, especially when it comes to the aspect of film restoration and preservation. Money spent on pirate copies on the other hand may make things convenient for you but merely fills the pockets of those, who have only one objective: keeping every cent of what they DO NOT OWN. And you co-finance that rip-off, just so you can save a couple of bucks.

And as for your "argument re: used Criterion: one: you did not buy a used Criterion nor do/did you have the intention, two: Criterion did not share their master(s) with the bootleg company, and three: a used copy of the Criterion Blu-ray would have contributed to the preservation (I did say preservation, not restoration), indeed, as the first buyer would have done so with his/her [legal] purchase.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

You seem to "forget" (or should I say conveniently ignore ?) that buying an illegal product IN EVERY case causes damage not only to the owner in any case but also the proper preservation of the elements for which money is needed, especially when it comes to the aspect of film restoration and preservation. Money spent on pirate copies on the other hand may make things convenient for you but merely fills the pockets of those, who have only one objective: keeping every cent of what they DO NOT OWN. And you co-finance that rip-off, just so you can save a couple of bucks.

And as for your "argument re: used Criterion: one: you did not buy a used Criterion nor do/did you have the intention, two: Criterion did not share their master(s) with the bootleg company, and three: a used copy of the Criterion Blu-ray would have contributed to the preservation (I did say preservation, not restoration), indeed, as the first buyer would have done so with his/her [legal] purchase.

You're not going to win this with this particular gentleman. He's not even acknowledging that you've already proven this company sells bootlegs. He's arguing to argue but everyone knows it. Many people buy bootlegs of many things - films, music - and that's why the world is in the sorry state it's in - entitlement first and foremost. Not the world I grew up in, I'm afraid, and certainly not the world I live in. The few times I've found people offering audio rips of any CD we put out, I immediately inform the rights' holders and they and I go after these people and get the thing removed. I have personally had several titles removed from amazon - they're very good about it. I just send an image of our inlay card with the proper copyright line and that's that. And that is what I've said since word one in this and other threads: No proper copyright line and you have a bootleg.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by gap

You are of course correct . How silly of me to forget that you know best as to what is appropriate. Perhaps in future you could just PM us all in advance with what you would like us to post and then we can be sure that all replies are suitably appropriate.

This game was over a page ago.

[gap]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

This game was over a page ago.

And yet here you are

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by tenia

Oh, now we're throwing second-hand market into the argument ?

Fact is : the pennies you don't send to film restoration have already been given the first time. Through Studio 4K, they won't, not through the 1st buyer, not the 2nd, etc etc.

But please : don't compare second-hand market and bootlegs.

Please.

Just please.

I'm not sure I can make any sense of that at all.

I'm not comparing the second hand market to bootlegs. I'm not saying that buying second hand is like buying a bootleg, or vice versa.

You've clearly missed the point.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

You seem to "forget" (or should I say conveniently ignore ?) that buying an illegal product IN EVERY case causes damage not only to the owner in any case but also the proper preservation of the elements for which money is needed, especially when it comes to the aspect of film restoration and preservation. Money spent on pirate copies on the other hand may make things convenient for you but merely fills the pockets of those, who have only one objective: keeping every cent of what they DO NOT OWN. And you co-finance that rip-off, just so you can save a couple of bucks.

And as for your "argument re: used Criterion: one: you did not buy a used Criterion nor do/did you have the intention, two: Criterion did not share their master(s) with the bootleg company, and three: a used copy of the Criterion Blu-ray would have contributed to the preservation (I did say preservation, not restoration), indeed, as the first buyer would have done so with his/her [legal] purchase.

I'll take the last point first.

Yes, Criterion have already made their money from the first buyer - and they keep that money whether that person keeps it or sells it on. Buying a Criterion disc new provided money to help preservation.

Buying a used copy of a legitimate release doesn't provide a single penny towards film preservation and restoration.

On you first point, I'm happy to hear your argument on this if you're prepared to make one.

Specifically - I missed the Criterion Blu-ray. I bought the SC Blu-ray.

Can you tell me exactly what damage I've done to film preservation and restoration by buying the Studio 4K ?

Exactly what money would the preservers and restorers get if I didn't buy it that they haven't got because I have bought it?

Specifically.

I'm not a cheapskate. I don't got round buying cheap bootlegs (actually we should call them pirates in most cases) instead of legitimate releases.

Because of the news you've brought to this thread I would not (for example) buy a Studio 4K copy of M when the legitimate MoC version is available.

Steve W

[tenia]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I'm not sure I can make any sense of that at all.

I'm not comparing the second hand market to bootlegs. I'm not saying that buying second hand is like buying a bootleg, or vice versa.

You've clearly missed the point.

Steve W

I suggest you read again what you wrote there :

Originally Posted by Pecker

With specific regard to this comment:

"Since none of the money goes into the investment of preserving these films, it would be great if would-be buyers think hard before even considering a purchase from these dubious sources."

This is a valid point, and I will not be buying any further titles from them where the legitimate release is available elsewhere.

However, had I not yet bought The Third Man I'd still be buying the Studio 4K version, for the simple reason that the fullest implication of the above doesn't really apply.

I've already bought the SC version, and if I buy a used copy of the Criterion version not a penny would go towards film restoration, either.

Steve W

I'm not the only one to understand this as a clear comparison of bootleg VS second-hand copies, stating that in both cases, not a penny would go towards film restoration.

Not only the comparison is quite clear from a pure moral point of view, but it's also quite clear from a rhetorical one.

I do think you should rewrite in an other way what I quoted, because believe me, you're the only seeing the clear point me and Mr Kaiser missed.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by tenia

I'm not the only one to understand this as a clear comparison of bootleg VS second-hand copies, stating that in both cases, not a penny would go towards film restoration.

The point you continue to miss is this.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with buying a used Criterion copy. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do so. I'm saying it doesn't, in iteslf, encourage or support the restoration of film.

But here's the important thing, so let me be clear. It is currently impossible to purchase a Blu-ray Disc of The Third Man and support film restoration.

The Criterion is deleted and the SC is poor. Are we agreed on that?

Subsequently, purchasing the Studio 4K release does no damage whatsoever to film restoration.

Steve W

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Pecker

But here's the important thing, so let me be clear. It is currently impossible to purchase a Blu-ray Disc of The Third Man and support film restoration.

Huh? Why doesn't buying the legitimate SC release count?

Originally Posted by Pecker

Subsequently, purchasing the Studio 4K release does no damage whatsoever to film restoration.
Steve W

What about the next title that Studio 4K bootlegs, and the next one, and the next one - the ones that you are encouraging by funding them?

Regardless of all your goalpost-shifting, it comes down to this: do the right thing morally, you know what it is. It's hard enough to get good classic movies on Blu-Ray without screwing the legitimate rights holders.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Pecker

(...)Can you tell me exactly what damage I've done to film preservation and restoration by buying the Studio 4K ? Exactly what money would the preservers and restorers get if I didn't buy it that they haven't got because I have bought it?
(...)
Steve W

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

"Since none of the money goes into the investment of preserving these films, it would be great if would-be buyers think hard before even considering a purchase from these dubious sources."

Originally Posted by Pecker

This is a valid point, and I will not be buying any further titles from them where the legitimate release is available elsewhere.
However, had I not yet bought The Third Man I'd still be buying the Studio 4K version, for the simple reason that the fullest implication of the above doesn't really apply.
(...)
Steve W

If your word is to be trusted, you are very comfortable buying pirate copies, if it fits your "needs". Buying the SC Version does not grant you any right to buy pirate copies of the same film - anywhere, whatever the format or in which territory.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

If your word is to be trusted, you are very comfortable buying pirate copies, if it fits your "needs". Buying the SC Version does not grant you any right to buy pirate copies of the same film - anywhere, whatever the format or in which territory.

I am not 'very comfortable buying pirate copies'. I am distinctly uncomfortable.

I will not divert funds from legitimate releases of films to buy pirate copies, and have not done so in this instance.

You've still failed to answer my question - how have I diverted funds from film restoration by buying this disc?

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Huh? Why doesn't buying the legitimate SC release count?

Because it's crap. SC could have paid Criterion to use their excellent restoration and chose not to do so. You know, many people believe that poor releases should be boycotted to encourage studios to release proper versions.

Originally Posted by lemonski

What about the next title that Studio 4K bootlegs, and the next one, and the next one - the ones that you are encouraging by funding them?

Could you be more specific?

Do you mean new titles which are available legitimately, like M ? Because I've been clear I won't buy those releases.

If there's another film out there with an excellent restoration which is deleted and unavailable, I suppose I could be encouraging that. But then again, I'd possibly buy that.

Originally Posted by lemonski

Regardless of all your goalpost-shifting, it comes down to this: do the right thing morally, you know what it is. It's hard enough to get good classic movies on Blu-Ray without screwing the legitimate rights holders.

Could you specifically tell me which goal posts I've shifted?

On the moral front, I think others are being far more flexible here.

Anyone in Europe who has bought a Region 1 or Region Free player (or in the US who has bouht into Region 2) is 'screwing the legitimate rights holders'.

To be clear, the reason Criterion locked their release of The Third Man is because they only had the rights to a US release.

To be clear, if a shop in the UK tries to sell a US copy of a DVD or Blu-ray Disc it becomes a pirate copy, and shops in the UK have been prosecuted for doing so, right back to the days of LaserDisc.

Most of us here regularly screw the legitimate rights holders every time we import. And no one ever questions it.

Steve W

[Bucky]

Still no change on The Lady from Shanghai...

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Because it's crap.
SC could have paid Criterion to use their excellent restoration and chose not to do so.

In what universe do you think Criterion would license said excellent restoration to the company that took the rights to the Third Man off them?

Originally Posted by Pecker

You know, many people believe that poor releases should be boycotted to encourage studios to release proper versions.

So why didn't you boycott the SC version if you felt that way? Instead you support a company selling bootlegs.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Could you be more specific?

Do you mean new titles which are available legitimately, like M ? Because I've been clear I won't buy those releases.

I mean future 4K titles. By buying their bootlegged Third Man, you're encouraging them to continue releasing more non-legitimate discs.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Could you specifically tell me which goal posts I've shifted?

On the moral front, I think others are being far more flexible here.

Anyone in Europe who has bought a Region 1 or Region Free player (or in the US who has bouht into Region 2) is 'screwing the legitimate rights holders'.

You're not screwing anyone - you're giving money to the licensed rights holder for the product you're buying. Buying a Studio 4K title you're giving money to someone who does not hold the rights. It's fairly straightforward.

Originally Posted by Pecker

To be clear, the reason Criterion locked their release of The Third Man is because they only had the rights to a US release.

To be clear, if a shop in the UK tries to sell a US copy of a DVD or Blu-ray Disc it becomes a pirate copy, and shops in the UK have been prosecuted for doing so, right back to the days of LaserDisc.

That's all very nice, but it's irrelevant. If Studio 4K don't hold the rights, I believe morally you shouldn't be buying the product. Simple as that. All this obfuscation and convoluted justification is just a sideshow.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by lemonski

I mean future 4K titles. By buying their bootlegged Third Man, you're encouraging them to continue releasing more non-legitimate discs.

Well, that's one you can take anyway you want.

I mean this is for sale at Amazon. By buying anything from Amazon am I encouraging them? I mean you know that Amazon are selling a bootleg. Bu buying anything from Amazon, it could ber argued, you're supporting bootleg sellers.

For me, and this is just a personal view, by buying The Third Man the only signal I'm sending is that I'd buy another disc in the same situation. Studio 4K, or you, or anyone else, can read what they want into it, I suppose.

Originally Posted by lemonski

That's all very nice, but it's irrelevant. If Studio 4K don't hold the rights, I believe morally you shouldn't be buying the product. Simple as that. All this obfuscation and convoluted justification is just a sideshow.

Morally I think I'm okay, because you can't buy this elsewhere. Now Studio 4K are morally wrong for bootlegging it, but there are plenty of things legitimate studios do which rip off legitimate film makers and rights holders (see Alex Cox and Straight to Hell).

Steve W

[Pecker]

I think this thread has taken a bad side step.

I just want to be clear - I don't buy pirates. I'm not the bloke who looks for dodgy stuff on e-bay, or from the bloke in the pub, or at a car boot.

I don't support piracy. I don't support Studio 4K if they're releasing titles they should be releasing. Nor any other company. I won't be buying M, The Lady From Shanghai, or any other current or future titles that I've seen listed from this company.

The Third Man is one of my favourite films - it's in my Top 10. I've owned it on just about every format going, in some cases more than once. I missed the criterion release and can't justify the ridiculous amounts currently asked for. I bought the SC Blu-ray, and it's less than stellar.

Do I like paying a non-legitimate company for what is effectively the Criterion? No, I don't like it, and I'd rather do something else. But would I borrow a Criterion copy from a friend? Yes, even though that's technically illegal.

Would I rip the copy I'd borrowed? Yes I would, even though that's definitely illegal, and even though I'd not rip a borrowed film if it were available to buy.

The truth is, we can go round the houses all we like, but needs must when the devil drives. As someone once said that sometimes you have to forget about your principles and do the right thing.

I doubt very much that too many people here have kept strictly within the letter of the law for every single purchase they've made.

Do I criticise others for not buying this release? No I don't.

But I think it's a bit much to paint me as some sort of morally slippery thief, for buying this one disc in what is, let's face it, a fairly unique circumstance.

Steve W

[tenia]

Originally Posted by Pecker

But would I borrow a Criterion copy from a friend? Yes, even though that's technically illegal.

Borrowing a movie from a friend, especially without paying for it, is perfectly legal.

Originally Posted by Pecker

But I think it's a bit much to paint me as some sort of morally slippery thief, for buying this one disc in what is, let's face it, a fairly unique circumstance.

While you're right about this argument being wrong (taking a part for the whole), you'd have to admit it does send the message "yeah, I don't support bootlegs, but come on ! It's this movie I love so much, I couldn't resist !"

It seems thus that this moral stand-point is quite fragile.

Plus, I bought last year a used copy of the Criterion Third Man digi for 20€, and the SC release, while inferior PQ-wise, is far from "less than stellar".

The issue around this might also be a very different problem : why the only remaining legal option, if you want to buy a new copy and not a used one, is to buy an inferior release ?

But that's unfortunately the rules of the game : video distribution is one of the worst market ever competition-wise. Basically, the video distribution right-holders (in the present case : Studio Canal) are in a monopol position with no competition, a position which would be forbidden in many different markets.

That reminds me of the Better Tomorrow trilogy in France : even if the HK Video DVD boxset was wildly too expensive for its quality, that was the only possibility to get a French subbed legal copy. What should I have done, then ? Try to get around, even if it was illegal ?

I mean : Come on ! I love these movies so much !

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by tenia

Borrowing a movie from a friend, especially without paying for it, is perfectly legal.

In the UK it isn't, as made clear in the warnings at the start/end of films.

Originally Posted by tenia

While you're right about this argument being wrong (taking a part for the whole), you'd have to admit it does send the message "yeah, I don't support bootlegs, but come on ! It's this movie I love so much, I couldn't resist !"

Yes, I see and understand what you're saying, and to an extent I agree.

But ultimately, as I've correctly noted, I'm not robbing anyone of anything. Criterion don't sell this anymore, and buying a used copy of the Criterion doesn't get them a penny. I've already bought the SC.

If SC re-released with a superior, Criterion-esque transfer, I'd buy it.

Originally Posted by tenia

It seems thus that this moral stand-point is quite fragile.

Yes and no. Some moral decisions are clear cut. Many are not. Just because something isn't clear cut (fragile?) doesn't mean you don't have to decide.

Originally Posted by tenia

The issue around this might also be a very different problem : why the only remaining legal option, if you want to buy a new copy and not a used one, is to buy an inferior release ?

But that's unfortunately the rules of the game : video distribution is one of the worst market ever competition-wise. Basically, the video distribution right-holders (in the present case : Studio Canal) are in a monopol position with no competition, a position which would be forbidden in many different markets.

But there you go. You've swapped from what's immortal to what's illegal.

Originally Posted by tenia

I mean : Come on ! I love these movies so much !

Agreed - that's certainly part of the equation.

For me, I love the film. If the Criterion was still available, or the SC a decent release, I'd consider buying the Studio 4K release to be stealing, both morally and legally.

As I've said, I can't buy the Criterion (from Criterion) and I've bought the SC already.

Technically I've done nothing illegal by buying the Studio 4K (I had no evidence it was a boot at the time) and morally I've not stolen (deprived of what is rightfully theirs) anything from Criterion or SC.

My conscience is clear.

But to be extra clear, I do not support buying pirated material.

Steve W

[flixyflox]

For Christ's sake can someone, preferably a moderator put this thread out of its misery.