Re: [dvd-discuss] Distribution (Was: Eldred Being Argued Today)

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

No I don't doubt that the quality is superior but the question is does 
having a monopoly to produce pristine prints when they choose to 
distribute them versus having any print available worth the cost? 

There are other ways to achieve this other than creating a state 
sanctioned monopoly...and have been discussed here...a few that come to 
mind...Demand that they produce a master print in the LOC that becomes 
available to the public at the end of copyright (ooopppsss they already 
tried that and Paramount has a special deal that the LOC doesn't release 
prints to the public afterwards.) ...Tax "intellectual property" that is 
not released tot he public domain after a certain time...gradiated 
fees....the point is not that these are desirable means but that there are 
alternatives to creating an odeous monopoly.




Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/11/2002 09:43 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Distribution (Was: Eldred Being Argued Today)



On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 11:16  AM, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Futhermore, the whole "preservation" mantra is total BS. If I get my
> directors copy of Buster Keaton's "The General" (Which is not in the
> public domain I believe since it was made in 1927), convet the video to
> digital and burn it onto a CDR, then the loss of quality from a master
> film print  may be negligible and the work has been preserved digitally
> and distributed increasing its chances for preservation, distribution.
> THere is nothing in the Consitution regarding rights for distributers 
> and
> that argument is self serving nonsense.  And that giving distributers
> monopoly rights so that they can distribute pristine copies ad 
> infinitum
> is Constitutional is so bizarre that one can only hope they advance to 
> the
> final rounds of the Darwin Awards forthwith.
>
Actually, the difference between a fully restored print, and one that 
is in need of restoratioin can be quite dramatic. For instance, both 
Criterion and Laserlight have released copies of early Hitchcock films. 
The Criterion editions are 3-4 times the price of the Laserlight 
versions, but the resolution is much improved. You might think that 
degradations in quality are to be expected, but a number of DVD's of 
old films belie this assumption. (North by Northwest, for one).
Some dvd's in my collection (a cheapie copy of Theatre of Blood) look 
like they might have been duplicated from an ancient VHS tape,

For all the talk of digital copying and intellectual property, the fact 
remains that the only really suitable sources for publication to DVD 
remain _physical_ property, locked, and possibly ignored in someone's 
vault.

Jeremy