[quote=“Sebastian, post:40, topic:413”]selling the stuff is a different thing. it’s just as illegal as FC’s sellling them is - or not. plus, outside the USA, almost any copying and selling of bootlegs - and FC stuff are bootlegs, legally speaking - is practially non-legal.
I wish we had some lawyers in here, but as far as I understand it, it is entirely FC’s own risk to put all this work into it, I don’t believe he has ANY legal way of challenging whatever people do with the material they got from him.[/quote]
Selling the stuff is a different thing: that’s exactly what I was talking about.
I wasn’t judging FC.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I’ve learned, from a Dutch forum, that our friend Bad Lieutenant knows a bit more about these things.
So, Bad Boy …
Scherpschutter, I study law and last year I studied international media & entertainment management, where I had a course about copyright law. But this, by no means, makes me an expert on this subject. Anyway, the way I see it, Sebastian is completely right. Lawyers like analogies, so here’s one. If I have a rotten car and you turn it into something decent without asking me, that doesn’t make it your car. Moreover you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. After all, it’s not your car. In other words, you cannot put a claim on something that is not yours in the first place, even if you put labor into it. And just because people appreciate your illegal activities, that soesn’t make them legal. But that’s my legal view on things. Morally I’m so corrupt (or desensitized) that I couldn’t care about stuff like that. Besides that, I want to see spaghetti westerns, all of 'em!
Recommended reading: Content rights for creative professionals. Copyrights and trademarks in a digital age - Arnold P. Lutzker
I think a good analogy on this topic is squatting rights on an empty property.
In the UK (at least this used to be the law, I’m not sure if it still is), if a building is left empty and unused and someone gains access without causing damage they have squatters rights because the building was not being gainfully used.
If you break in to a building that is in use it is illegal because the building is not vacant.
Fundamentally the idea is that there is a moral imperative on the owner to put the building to use.
In those terms, companies that have copyright on films could be seen to have a moral imperative to release them. In other words, to use a more vulgar english phrase, piss or get off the pot.
[quote=“Bad Lieutenant, post:42, topic:413”]Scherpschutter, I study law and last year I studied international media & entertainment management, where I had a course about copyright law. But this, by no means, makes me an expert on this subject.
Recommended reading: Content rights for creative professionals. Copyrights and trademarks in a digital age - Arnold P. Lutzker[/quote]
No expert maybe, but a better judge on these subjects than I am, that was my point.
I’m a philosopher, copyrights and trademarks in a digital age … wow …
Thanks for the quick response anyway!
[quote=“Phil H, post:43, topic:413”]I think a good analogy on this topic is squatting rights on an empty property.
In the UK (at least this used to be the law, I’m not sure if it still is), if a building is left empty and unused and someone gains access without causing damage they have squatters rights because the building was not being gainfully used.
If you break in to a building that is in use it is illegal because the building is not vacant.
Fundamentally the idea is that there is a moral imperative on the owner to put the building to use.
In those terms, companies that have copyright on films could be seen to have a moral imperative to release them. In other words, to use a more vulgar english phrase, piss or get off the pot.[/quote]i like this
[quote=“Phil H, post:43, topic:413”]I think a good analogy on this topic is squatting rights on an empty property.
In the UK (at least this used to be the law, I’m not sure if it still is), if a building is left empty and unused and someone gains access without causing damage they have squatters rights because the building was not being gainfully used.
If you break in to a building that is in use it is illegal because the building is not vacant.
Fundamentally the idea is that there is a moral imperative on the owner to put the building to use.
In those terms, companies that have copyright on films could be seen to have a moral imperative to release them. In other words, to use a more vulgar english phrase, piss or get off the pot.[/quote]
That too is a good analogy. In The Netherlands we have similar squatting regulations, but I don’t agree with them at all. If I were to have an empty building and I wouldn’t do anything with it, that would be my choice. And it should be respected. I wouldn’t want deadbeats moving into my building, to mooch and live there for free. But yeah, when you’re talking movies it is somewhat the idea of ‘abandoned wares’ as in old, retarded DOS games that noone (except a couple of freaks) are interested in. Are these people entitled to be served? Are the right holders morally obliged to release (even though maybe not profitable)? Perhaps they should put the movies in public domain, if they’re not going to anythng with them anyway. But why would they do that? What would be in it for them? In other words, that will not happen. If rights holders put a movie in public domain, it’s not just the movie, but also the story and the music that will be anybody’s for the taking. Companies will hold on to their rights and even prolong them. I mean, you have this screen writers strike at the moment (also interesting, because it’s a digital age-discussion). If that keeps going on too long, there will be hell of a lot remakes. So therefore, it’s wise to keep your catalogue.[quote=“scherpschutter, post:44, topic:413”]No expert maybe, but a better judge on these subjects than I am, that was my point.
I’m a philosopher, copyrights and trademarks in a digital age … wow …
Thanks for the quick response anyway![/quote]
If you’re a philosopher, chances are you’re pretty intelligent. Besides that, law basically is 50% philosophy. Raise questions, and answer them, both from a moral point of view. I remember something a professor (Paul Cliteur) said while lecturing: “A serial killer can’t be a good lawyer”. There’s a whole lot more to law than rigidly implementing written laws. That’s not even possible. Just think of the vague terms in law books. Anyway, I’m getting way off track… Check out The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. I can actually guarantee you that you, as a philosopher, will find it interesting material. It also ‘reads away’ easily.
Raising questions and answer them, from a moral point of view - that’s what I have been doing, repeatedly, talking with Indioblack.
But I thought an advice was welcome from somebody who knew more about those other 50 %.
Anyway, talking about digital age, trademarks and wows, I was joking a bit, but you already guessed that, I suppose.
And Hobbes’ Leviathan is excellent reading indeed!
What bothers me about the Franco Cleef situation is that, in sticking his head above the parapet and drawing attention to the existence of fan dubbing, he may ultimately be instrumental in killing it off.
How many other fan-dubbers out there dread their next foreign language DVD turning up with some clever copy-protection on it that the decryption software can’t handle ?
All that the DVD distributors need to excuse falling sales is a fan-dubber like Franco Cleef and a company like Xploited, and then they can leap in with all sorts of justification for regulating DVD distribution, incorporating new anti-copying software both in DVDs and personal DVD recorders, and putting prices up.
Recently I’ve noticed that more DVDs are coming out from the US with RCE protection. This means that they just will not play on normal cracked Region 2 players. And that means that I can’t even buy the new Godzilla releases, which are otherwise unlikely to arrive in Britain, ever.
Now what exactly prompted the invention of RCE ?
Personally, I have no problem with Franco Cleef and everyone else, fan-dubbing movies for their own pleasure, or even sharing with friends, even if it is illegal. I think it’s very enterprising. It enables English speakers to enjoy the higher quality and correct aspect ratio of European DVDs, without having to learn another language.
But I believe that the best way for those movies to be distributed is by those friends duplicating the DVDs and swapping them with other fans in an ever-growing underground network that emulates ripples in a pool.
Selling those property-theft DVDs to the public via an on-line website, seems to me foolish in the extreme.
And criticising someone who buys one of these DVDs, copies it, and then sells it on e-bay, simply defines hypocrisy.
Yes, they should never be distributed that way. FC could sell them off himself and else they should just live the normal dvdr life, being traded around.
… and I don’t think you’ll find anyone on this board who thinks otherwise.
I totally agree. I’ve bought and enjoyed Franco’s efforts. In the case of any art or wider cultural work, it should be available in some form in the public domain. All this stuff has existed with the intention to be seen by a public. If a painting is owned by a private collector then so be it - but it should be available to be still seen even as a document in the form of the best possible print and still should be made available to any serious scholar as needs be. And like a building with ‘listed’ status - painting, sculpture, film, etc. should not be destroyed on a whim or for political reasons. Patricia Cornwell ripped-up a Walter Sickert painting (and his reputation) in her stupid desire to find DNA and make him out to be Jack the Ripper … all to make herself more millions of dollars. In the 1920s, a number of 1500(?) year old hidden ‘apogrypha’ biblical texts were found in Egypt and some were thrown on a fire 'cos they were tatty.
The taliban have destroyed pre-islamic and Buddist art in Afghanistan because it suits them. Equally recently, that statue of Sadam was famously pulled down. There is a grey area and I shed no tears over Sadam … but - once these things have gone then that’s it. GONE. Who should decide?
If ('scuse the mixed metaphor) somebody is sitting on my culture then they’d better be pissing in the pot, cos I want a result. If I wanna see it and I think my reason is good enough then charge me accordingly. I dont necessarily agree to, or trust whoever you are to be the guardian of my culture. We live in strange times and stuff gets censored and repressed.
In my roundabout way what I’m saying is … I don’t care about your dollars but you can charge me anyway. If you morally fuck me over I’ll buy a bootleg. If you sit on it and deny me, I’ll steal it. You are only a guardian of my history and my culture and I want access to it. Fuck the BBC for taping over the Daleks … and I hope my boss upstairs dishes out some eternal damnation to P.C. and that she finally finds out who Jack really was, in the same Bastard room in Hell, for what she did to Sickert’s picture - (which is, in my view, more culturally important than her ramblings).
I’ll go the legal route and support the companies that put this stuff out - but only so they put more out. In this respect Wild East and Franco Cleef are greater in my eyes than the multinationals who dont give a fuck about our art.
Fan-based is best regarding public-domain.
(I’ve modified and added this 'cos I feel a bit guilty - I don’t wish anybody harm … In defence, I am on a concoction of painkillers (and beer) and midget gems, cos of my hernia op, and was ranting a bit. I still stand by the general ethos of the rant … but without the violence. Sorry!)
[quote=“Reverend Danite, post:50, topic:413”]I totally agree. I’ve bought and enjoyed Franco’s efforts. In the case of any art or wider cultural work, it should be available in some form in the public domain. All this stuff has existed with the intention to be seen by a public. If a painting is owned by a private collector then so be it - but it should be available to be still seen even as a document in the form of the best possible print and still should be made available to any serious scholar as needs be. And like a building with ‘listed’ status - painting, sculpture, film, etc. should not be destroyed on a whim or for political reasons. Patricia Cornwell ripped-up a Walter Sickert painting (and his reputation) in her stupid desire to find DNA and make him out to be Jack the Ripper … all to make herself more millions of dollars. In the 1920s, a number of 1500(?) year old hidden ‘apogrypha’ biblical texts were found in Egypt and some were thrown on a fire 'cos they were tatty.
The taliban have destroyed pre-islamic and Buddist art in Afghanistan because it suits them. Equally recently, that statue of Sadam was famously pulled down. There is a grey area and I shed no tears over Sadam … but - once these things have gone then that’s it. GONE. Who should decide?
If ('scuse the mixed metaphor) somebody is sitting on my culture then they’d better be pissing in the pot, cos I want a result. If I wanna see it and I think my reason is good enough then charge me accordingly. I dont necessarily agree to, or trust whoever you are to be the guardian of my culture. We live in strange times and stuff gets censored and repressed.
In my roundabout way what I’m saying is … I don’t care about your dollars but you can charge me anyway. If you morally fuck me over I’ll buy a bootleg. If you sit on it and deny me, I’ll steal it. You are only a guardian of my history and my culture and I want access to it. Fuck the BBC for taping over the Daleks … and I hope my boss upstairs dishes out some eternal damnation to P.C. and that she finally finds out who Jack really was, in the same Bastard room in Hell, for what she did to Sickert’s picture - (which is, in my view, more culturally important than her ramblings).
I’ll go the legal route and support the companies that put this stuff out - but only so they put more out. In this respect Wild East and Franco Cleef are greater in my eyes than the multinationals who dont give a fuck about our art.
Fan-based is best regarding public-domain.
(I’ve modified and added this 'cos I feel a bit guilty - I don’t wish anybody harm … In defence, I am on a concoction of painkillers (and beer) and midget gems, cos of my hernia op, and was ranting a bit. I still stand by the general ethos of the rant … but without the violence. Sorry!)[/quote]
Strong stuff for a reverend, if I may say so.
This Indioblack got what he asked for: a strong discussion.
I’ve never had a hernia operation, but a friend of mine has, so I know it not a pleasant experience.
I wish you a quick recovery!
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:51, topic:413”]Strong stuff for a reverend, if I may say so.
This Indioblack got what he asked for: a strong discussion.[/quote]
Yes I did, and so far, no real animosity. I’m very impressed.
Thanks for the best wishes Scherpschutter. Slowly on the mend … but I’m gonna ban myself from this forum after the beer and drug cocktail, so I dont rant off again.
Something nice to say this time -
Just watched SHANGO for the first time - I’ve had it for a while as a dodgy greek subtitled dvd-r (and been grateful for that, but it’s only been somewhere down the list of ‘to watch’ because of the quality) … but I bought the Franco Cleef version as well (which goes to show that I am prepared to buy the same film twice) should a better (or even a legitimate copy) come out.
Anyway - thanks to Franco Cleef, I got a suberb quality, widescreen print for a fair price. GOOD WORK FELLA.
Good film by the way - started slow, built up well - no real surprises but never boring. Quite nasty in places - and all together 82 minutes well spent. (Didn’t think about the pain once … OUCH!) Oh … and very autumnal (I’ll mention it on that thread).
How much did you pay for it ?
It’s just that I thought we could all club together to help you buy that one copy, and then you could run off duplicates of it for all of us. That way, we’d all get a copy of the movie without all having to pay Xploited for it.
Seems fair, because it’s exactly what Franco does to Koch media.
[/quote][quote=“IndioBlack, post:54, topic:413”]How much did you pay for it ?
It’s just that I thought we could all club together to help you buy that one copy, and then you could run off duplicates of it for all of us. That way, we’d all get a copy of the movie without all having to pay Xploited for it.
Seems fair, because it’s exactly what Franco does to Koch media.[/quote]
I don’t get this at all. From my research it seems that F.C. and Xploited are together on the distribution so there’s no rip-off there?
Koch media - whom I’ve supported and bought loads from - Massacre at Grande Canyon; Shoot the Living…; Sollima boxset; and just recently … Yankee (for instance) dont make it easy for us Brits - website only in German? The latest buy of Yankee took a leap of faith 'cos nowhere on the box (or even on the dvd menu) does it mention English subs are included. (I went by word of mouth) and gave them my custom. With all this lack of information I understand (maybe wrongly) that Koch media havn’t even released Shango???
So where would you get me a copy from … even should I be in the market for your ‘charity’ … and why on earth would I want to rip anybody off? I’m a man of the cloth for fuck’s sake! I have no problem ‘burning’ a friend a copy of an old video that exists in the public domain, or in theory, even a dvd that is out of print (altho I don’t even have the technology for this). I buy dvds/videos - the best I can at a fair price. I pretty much know what I get with a Franco Cleef production and am pleased so far. If he’s ripping somebody off in this grey area then maybe they could do something about it. Me - I’m just a Reverendo with a taste for spaghetti. Needs must amigo.
[quote=“IndioBlack, post:54, topic:413”]How much did you pay for it ?
It’s just that I thought we could all club together to help you buy that one copy, and then you could run off duplicates of it for all of us. That way, we’d all get a copy of the movie without all having to pay Xploited for it.
Seems fair, because it’s exactly what Franco does to Koch media.[/quote]
Three words: Trading. Trading. Trading. It may come as a surprise for you but people on this site do trade DVDR’s also. And these do include the Cleef-‘releases’ also, why shouldn’t they!? Nothing special about them.
@Reverend: Cleef’s releases are dvdrs. There’s nothing official about them at all. Cleef sometimes uses foreign dvd prints (from for example Koch Media) for his ‘releases’. The people being ripped off are of course US, the buyers. I wholly support IndioBlack’s proposition, trade these releases instead of buying them.
[quote=“Reverend Danite, post:55, topic:413”]I don’t get this at all. From my research it seems that F.C. and Xploited are together on the distribution so there’s no rip-off there?
Koch media - whom I’ve supported and bought loads from - Massacre at Grande Canyon; Shoot the Living…; Sollima boxset; and just recently … Yankee (for instance) dont make it easy for us Brits - website only in German? The latest buy of Yankee took a leap of faith 'cos nowhere on the box (or even on the dvd menu) does it mention English subs are included. (I went by word of mouth) and gave them my custom. With all this lack of information I understand (maybe wrongly) that Koch media havn’t even released Shango???
So where would you get me a copy from … even should I be in the market for your ‘charity’ … and why on earth would I want to rip anybody off? I’m a man of the cloth for fuck’s sake! I have no problem ‘burning’ a friend a copy of an old video that exists in the public domain, or in theory, even a dvd that is out of print (altho I don’t even have the technology for this). I buy dvds/videos - the best I can at a fair price. I pretty much know what I get with a Franco Cleef production and am pleased so far. If he’s ripping somebody off in this grey area then maybe they could do something about it. Me - I’m just a Reverendo with a taste for spaghetti. Needs must amigo.[/quote]
Perhaps you missed my point, because I was being too ironic. So here’s an example:
Franco Cleef buys a Koch media DVD, adds a soundtrack, then gets Xploited to sell the result. Lots of SW fans buy the movie off Xploited, and both Xploited and Franco Cleef make some money.
So that’s one Koch media DVD turned into lots of Cleef/Exploited DVDs.
So what if I buy one Cleef/Exploited DVD, make lots of copies, put them in my own DVD covers, and sell them on to SW fans at a lower price than Xploited charge.
What’s the difference ?
In both instances, someone turns one DVD into many DVDs and charges money for it. Either both instances are illegal and morally wrong; or both cases are great and good for the SW fan.
Since I can see that you don’t care where you get your SW from, so long as you can get it. Then surely you would be absolutely delighted if you could get your Xploited DVDs at half-price from me or anyone else.
So where’s the harm in one of us buying the next Cleef/Exploited DVD and making copies for everybody else. Naturally a small charge would have to be made for duplication time, cost of disk, post & packing. But you could have that Cleef/Xploited DVD at $5 rather than $19. Everybody would be happy, and nobody would be hurt.
[quote=“IndioBlack, post:58, topic:413”]Perhaps you missed my point, because I was being too ironic. So here’s an example:
Since I can see that you don’t care where you get your SW from, so long as you can get it.
Do you agree ?[/quote]
I do get irony. I dont get your argument. And NO, I dont agree.
I DO CARE where I get my dvd’s from - but let me make it plainer.
I buy the best available that exists - in an English dub and widescreen if possible. As I’ve said, I bought the Franco Cleef version because it is the ONLY version available that I know of in this form (I have a traded video version in fullscreen with Greek subs, and at the time this was the best I could get. I didn’t consider this a rip off … and it doesnt sound like AvatarDK would either?). As far as I am aware - regarding the FC version, he hasn’t ripped off Koch media. If KM had an English dubbed version I may well have bought it. As I’ve also stated - I do buy their products.
Where it becomes very grey … I make sometimes apparently contradictory moves - but my baseline is a moral stance primarily and a legal one secondarily. I DO NOT DELIBERATELY TRY TO RIP PEOPLE OFF. I have bought bootlegs (naively) when I was under the impression I was getting the real thing. And I have some of those Jap bootlegs cos I dunno where else to get originals - and I’m not sure I could pay the extortionate amounts they ask - and anyway others are of the impression that these are ‘illegal’ when they advertise themselves outside of Japan. This whole area of legit is a minefield. My quest to own Spaghetti westerns has meant I have put my hard won coin in the hands of multinationals and ‘entrepeneurs’ alike. My concience is relatively clear. I dont trust the big companies to be the guardians of my art and culture put I’ll live with it until the time THEY rip ME off. (As they’ve done regarding service at times).Then fuck 'em. Robin Hood to the rescue.
I respect the fans who trade, as I have … but ultimately as I’ll say again… I just wanna watch spaghetti westerns. I do care where they come from but if you wont give me legally what I want then I’ll find it in the grey stuff.
And as this bit started with me watching FC’s SHANGO - can I ask 2 clear questions - Regarding this particular film (SHANGO), who has he ripped off? And secondly, why am I wrong to buy THIS PARTICULAR product?