Films otherwise unavailable.

[vitualis]

Alec...

Locking everyone up because of race is wrong. There is no way you can argue for it.

It is no different than the police raiding EVERY house in YOUR neighbourhood and locking everyone up because SOMEBODY there is a known terrorist. Sure, from the outside there appears to be benefit. The terrorist may get caught and it doesn't affect "me". As far as I remember, your legal system still assumes innocence.

As for nuclear weapons, yes, lots of countries were trying to develop them and lots of countries have. When you come down to it, plans to use nukes isn't really so vile on a relative basis. After all, I'm sure that the US has contingency plans to nuke just about every other country in the World. And let us not forget that the US is the only country to have actually used a nuke in war. It also has the largest nuclear arsenal. It actively supports the development of new nuclear weapons. It has unilaterally broken the long standing ICBM treaty.

And there were several other times in US history after WWII where it planned to nukes in war (e.g., Macarthur against China) which luckily never went ahead.

Although I'm sure that the US is now "relatively" responsible in its policy on the use of its nuclear weapons, there is no way you can convincingly argue that the US has the "moral authority" on this issue.

Regards.

[JohnnyCNote]

I've found several hard to find titles here (as the name would suggest): Robert's Hard to find Videos

Any experience with them? It's a site that has not had updates in a couple of years, nothing has descriptions (not even quality markings), and my last e-mail went unanswered. I've had the same trouble with Sharpco Distributors (their phone numbers are disconnected, too). Not to mention the prices are crazy high, especially seeing how it's all homemade stuff (though almost all of it appears to easily be public domain, therefore legit). I'm a skeptic.

I got the 5-hour bootleg of Apocalypse Now and Z, by Costa Gavras, both on VHS. They were what I expected. I'd order from them again. I guess way up there in Saskatoon they don't worry so much about selling bootleg stuff.

The Apocalypse Now tapes have the time-code on the bottom, and the music is mostly stuff from the Doors. It's still worth watching if you're a diehard fan of this movie. At the end they took parts of the dialog and put it to Disney's Winnie the Pooh . It's hilarious. For example, they're playing the Flight of the Valkyrie while Pooh floats around on a leaf.

I also ordered on eBay a DVD version of the infamous C*cks*ck*er Blues - the unreleased documentary about the Rolling Stones on tour in the early 70's. It's probably a copy from the VHS. I got a kick out of one guy who gave the seller negative feedback because he got a bootleg! I guess he thought there was an official version of this film floating around....

[adam]

But there is a key distinction between trademarks and copyrights that is being overlooked here. Trademarks only protect commercial exploitation and commercial exploitation is only one aspect of copyright protection. Copyrights also provide certain moral rights to the author, and this is why copyrights don't lapse due to lack of commerical use.

Trademarks do not grant an exclusive right in the name, logo, whatever, like most people probably think. A trademark is intended to prevent consumer confusion and to prevent others from capitilizing on another's goodwill in their mark. So if there is no use of the mark in commerce, then there is no longer any goodwill in it, and there is no longer a product so it cannot be said that there is consumer confusion. That is why trademarks can lapse if not used commercially. By definition, the scope of trademark is completely confined to commercial activity and the mark holder's interest in enforcing the mark is always of a monetary nature. The rights of the trademark holder are actually measured relative to the commercial value of the mark itself.

Copyrights are completely different. Unlike Trademarks, a copyright does provide "exclusive" rights to the author and these rights are not valued relative to the commercial value of the work. Unlike Trademarks, copyrights do not grant the rights necessary to protect use in commerce, rather they grant the exclusive right to choose whether to commercially exploit the work at all. Basically what I'm getting at is that there are artists who create art that is so close and personal to them that they would rather forgoe any possible profit from it in order to protect it from any distortion or perversion that could occur if eventually put into the public domain. Imagine Creamboat Willy XXX being released with the original footage being altered into pornography. I think artists should have the right to prevent things like this from happening at least while they are still living.

I actually think that the Song of the South mentioned above is a perfect example. Now there is of course a strong public interest in having art put into the public domain, but surely everyone would agree that the artist has some non-commercial interest in the work too. Disney apparantly wishes this movie was never made due to its racial undertones which they apparantly weren't concerned with at the time it was filmed. If it were widely distributed in the US it very well could tarnish their reputation as a family oriented company and it could be generally embarassing to them as well as, who knows, damaging to the public. Now I doubt any of this would occur, and actually I think enough time has passed that the public's interest in this piece of art has exceeded that of Disney's, but neverthless this is a perfect example of why copyright protection should not be based on commercial exploitation...because often the value in having the copyright is that you can prevent the work's exploitation. I think it would completely undermine the intent of copyright law to assume a public dedication due to lack of commercial exploitation.

I do agree that US copyright protection terms are too long. The Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Maybe 50 years after death is a little too long as well, though under TRIPS most countries do have the option of lowering this drastically for certain works which tend to be created more for commercial rather then artistic reasons, ie: movies. But I personally can't imagine copyrights in non-cinematographic works expiring before the death of the author. I just think I should have the right to create something for me and nobody else but me and not have to worry about losing all my rights to it while it sits in my closet. I just don't see how the public's interest in it can exceed mine until after I die.

[lordsmurf]

As long as you define "death".
I would tend to agree with you, though I still have some reservations about your approach. You're seeing through the eyes of the starving artist, I'm looking at the greedy companies. If "the company" makes something, it needs a defined length of time, as who's to say when the "company dies". With John Smith and his painting "the pretty girl", death may work; it's easy to define.

[Rookie64]

Copyrights are completely different. Unlike Trademarks, a copyright does provide "exclusive" rights to the author and these rights are not valued relative to the commercial value of the work. Unlike Trademarks, copyrights do not grant the rights necessary to protect use in commerce, rather they grant the exclusive right to choose whether to commercially exploit the work at all. Basically what I'm getting at is that there are artists who create art that is so close and personal to them that they would rather forgoe any possible profit from it in order to protect it from any distortion or perversion that could occur if eventually put into the public domain. Imagine Creamboat Willy XXX being released with the original footage being altered into pornography. I think artists should have the right to prevent things like this from happening at least while they are still living.

There's logic and reason in it but if you look around the Internet, there are so many porn images already being distributed of just about every celebrity image along with pornographic parodies of every cartoon character you can think of (old and new).
Many sites are devoted to just that and make profits on it.

Thing is, it's being done anyway, and not many companies or artists are doing much to stop it.


As for Steamboat Willy and Song Of The South - the original artists, including Walt Disney himself, are all deceased.

Even the star actors in Song Of The South are dead - child actor, Bobby Driscoll (Johnny) and Black actor, James Baskett (Uncle Remus).
No one responsible for the the making of the film around to defend it or have a say if they want it discontinued or not.

That Song of South was regularly shown on TV and in elementory schools, even when I was young, in the '70s, says that the Disney company was not embarassed by the film at the time.

Once an awareness and concern over how stereotypes in the media were demeaning to minorities, it became more offensive with time.

The Disney company didn't want to continue the distribution of this film because, they wanted to treat all their viewers with respect.
The film shown in modern times is perceived in a different light than what it's original intent was (now that most things are analyzed these days - it wasn't like that in the past).

Not every person who views the film will find it offensive, but there are some who will be more sensitive to the content now that it would be introduced to a whole new generation.

The Disney company sees that as potential harm to their image and has decided to discontinue the film from public viewings and distribution.


An artist should have the right to protect their unpublished works - I think most of us agree with that...but when something was already published, it takes on a life of its own that is apart from the original creator.
What makes Art an Art, is how it affects the lives of it's audience - being an influence, a piece of history or culture and a personal value to those who found something profound in it (something carried with them thru-out their lives).

The audience, in a sense should have some rights over the work as well...if the work is carelessly shelved away due to the originator's death or lack of interest in the work by the creator or current owner of rights.

I get a sense this is why most would prefer more things going into the public domain.

It should at least go into museums, libriaries or into the hands of a special organization who could see that a part of history would be given proper care, so that it can continue existence.

The creator or legal owner can then still have say how the work can be used commercially but wouldn't affect it being available for educational and historical purposes.


A lot of films are now lost due to careless storage or even due to the legal owners destroying them just to prevent them from being bootlegged.

[adam]

Lordsmurf, corporations do not use the same "death + X years" term that people do. They are granted a fixed term of so many years running from creation of the work or its publication and it is pretty much universally less then if the copyright holder were an individual. That is why big corporations typically file for copyrights under the name of an individual artist or under the name of the CEO. It gets them more years. In the US, you are pretty much looking at life + 70 years for everything regardless of whether it is created by Disney or John Doe.

I think we all at least agree that this is too long. I'd vote for somwhere between life and life + 50 years.

[AlecWest]

I've found several hard to find titles here (as the name would suggest): Robert's Hard to find Videos

Any experience with them?

YES! Remember my PM to you about "The Dark At The Top Of The Stairs?" This is where I got the VHS tape that was a piece of crap. I ordered one other tape from him, too ... a much older "unavailable" film titled, "If I Had A Million."

http://imdb.com/title/tt0023049/combined

It was grainy but viewable ... certainly not "capture" material, even at the VCD level. BTW, shipping takes a while from that guy since he lives in Saskatchewan province, Canada. Having only ordered two tapes from him, I can't make any "overall" judgment on the quality of what he sells. But, I was only marginally pleased with what I bought.

[AlecWest]

Alec...

Locking everyone up because of race is wrong. There is no way you can argue for it.

I wasn't trying to. I was only stating a fact, that some of the people who were locked up were bonafide agents of the Japanese government. That is also unarguable.

Although I'm sure that the US is now "relatively" responsible in its policy on the use of its nuclear weapons, there is no way you can convincingly argue that the US has the "moral authority" on this issue.

I won't try to convince you. Besides, if I did, I'd be violating forum rules on "political" discussions ... as well as drifting further away from the topic of "films otherwise unavailable." However, if you notice a History Channel program on this topic, do watch it.

[AlecWest]

I got the 5-hour bootleg of Apocalypse Now and Z, by Costa Gavras, both on VHS. They were what I expected. I'd order from them again. I guess way up there in Saskatoon they don't worry so much about selling bootleg stuff.

It's interesting you mentioned this. While I'm not an expert on international law, I do have some insight on this. It is quite likely that this Canadian seller is NOT violating any law. Here's the scenario.

Ever hear of W.I.P.O.? They're the World Intellectual Property Organization. The United States was one of the last countries to become a signatory to their charter agreements. As "punishment" for this, W.I.P.O. made recognition of U.S. intellectual property rights that existed prior to their signing date "optional" for existing member nations. Guess which option most nations took. However, while he probably doesn't have to worry about the R.C.M.P. busting down his door to stop his operation, the same cannot be said for those who receive the goods. But, that's kinda like buying cigarettes online from Native American sellers. The bugger is finding out who's receiving them ... and the sellers are not legally obligated to talk.

[AlecWest]

Disney apparantly wishes this movie was never made due to its racial undertones which they apparantly weren't concerned with at the time it was filmed. If it were widely distributed in the US it very well could tarnish their reputation as a family oriented company and it could be generally embarassing to them as well as, who knows, damaging to the public.

I think that would be a good argument for releasing the film on home video with a "PG" rating ... that parental guidance would be required to explain the nature of the film juxtaposed against the time in which is was created. But, in refusing to release it altogether, Disney is just taking the "easy" way out.

Imagine this scenario. Instead of "Uncle Remus," let's say the character was "Uncle Mordachai." And instead of a plantation, let's make the scene a Nazi camp like Buchenwald, Auschwitz, or Dachau. The scene opens with Uncle Mordechai looking well-fed, healthy and vibrant, dancing through a meadow near the camp, surrounded by lovable cartoon bears, foxes and rabbits. And, holding hands with the son and daughter of the Nazi camp commander, he smiles and sings:

"Zippety do dah,
Zippety yay.
My of my what a wonderful day.

Plenty of sunshine headin' my way.
Zippety do dah,
Zippety yay."

Now ... show that film to an audience of former prisoners and relatives of former prisoners. They would be disgusted, of course. But, if you showed this film to someone who had no personal experience with such camps, they might be inclined to think, "I guess life wasn't all that bad in the camps." Likewise, "Song Of The South" might get people who have no personal experience with slavery to think, "I guess life wasn't all that bad on the plantations."

But, guess what ... the film was made in 1946 ... prior to the Civil Rights Act and just following a World War where, in most cases, African American troops were kept segregated from white troops. That was a terrible period in our history ... a period of ambivalence about racial issues. "Song Of The South" is a great "Exhibit A" on that score ... and kids need to know about that period so they'll know that ambivalence is something to be avoided. In fact, I'd like to see the film released on home video ... immediately followed (or preceded) by a short explanation of "the prevailing attitudes" in the mid 1940s that made a film like this both "possible" and "popular" when it was released.

But (ahem), I admit that convincing Disney of that would be a hard sell.

[yoda313]

Hello,

I think that would be a good argument for releasing the film on home video with a "PG" rating ... that parental guidance would be required to explain the nature of the film juxtaposed against the time in which is was created.

Well I think other films have done JUST THAT. If you look at STAR TREK The Motion Picture I believe it was originally rated G in the theatrical release. But subsequent video releases have the PG rating. My only guess can be the SCI FI action and the use of the word "DAMN" once. Other than that I see no reason for the rating change.

Actually STAR WARS A New Hope supposedly was to get a G rating but Lucas added the burned bodies of Lukes Aunt and Uncle to achieve a PG rating - go figure

Kevin

[bazooka]

Disney apparantly wishes this movie was never made due to its racial undertones which they apparantly weren't concerned with at the time it was filmed. If it were widely distributed in the US it very well could tarnish their reputation as a family oriented company and it could be generally embarassing to them as well as, who knows, damaging to the public.

I think that would be a good argument for releasing the film on home video with a "PG" rating ... that parental guidance would be required to explain the nature of the film juxtaposed against the time in which is was created. But, in refusing to release it altogether, Disney is just taking the "easy" way out.

Imagine this scenario. Instead of "Uncle Remus," let's say the character was "Uncle Mordachai." And instead of a plantation, let's make the scene a Nazi camp like Buchenwald, Auschwitz, or Dachau. The scene opens with Uncle Mordechai looking well-fed, healthy and vibrant, dancing through a meadow near the camp, surrounded by lovable cartoon bears, foxes and rabbits. And, holding hands with the son and daughter of the Nazi camp commander, he smiles and sings:

"Zippety do dah,
Zippety yay.
My of my what a wonderful day.

Plenty of sunshine headin' my way.
Zippety do dah,
Zippety yay."

Now ... show that film to an audience of former prisoners and relatives of former prisoners. They would be disgusted, of course. But, if you showed this film to someone who had no personal experience with such camps, they might be inclined to think, "I guess life wasn't all that bad in the camps." Likewise, "Song Of The South" might get people who have no personal experience with slavery to think, "I guess life wasn't all that bad on the plantations."

But, guess what ... the film was made in 1946 ... prior to the Civil Rights Act and just following a World War where, in most cases, African American troops were kept segregated from white troops. That was a terrible period in our history ... a period of ambivalence about racial issues that kids need to know about so they'll know that ambivalence is something to be avoided.

But (ahem), I admit that convincing Disney of that would be a hard sell.

political

[AlecWest]

political

Can't help it. The movie itself has political ramifications. But, I was on-topic talking about a film that is "unavailable" and trying to think of a means by which it could be made available.

[lordsmurf]

In fact, I'd like to see the film released on home video ... immediately followed (or preceded) by a short explanation of "the prevailing attitudes" in the mid 1940s that made a film like this both "possible" and "popular" when it was released. But (ahem), I admit that convincing Disney of that would be a hard sell.

Disney has already done that...

I had to backup my DVD set of the Disney WWII cartoon set (released on DVD May 2004, in the collector tins).... just to watch it without being annoyed! They have PUOs (prohibited user operations) that FORCE YOU to sit and listen to narrators explain (for about 5 minutes) why Disney made anti-Nazi, anti-Japanese toons. Some of them were quite disturbing (the training of young Nazis, followed by his death). Your remote is disabled pretty much the entire time you watch it, so I made a PUO-free backup so I could navigate like I saw fit (I did watch them the first time, but I see no need to watch that EVERY time).

But Disney has done it. They should do it again.

[vitualis]

I wasn't trying to. I was only stating a fact, that some of the people who were locked up were bonafide agents of the Japanese government. That is also unarguable.

But what is the consequence of that fact? You are trying to imply that there was merit in that sort of policy.

I don't contest that there were real agents. The real "fact" is, however, is that the vast majority of people were completely innocent and they were locked up for no other reason than their race.

However, if you notice a History Channel program on this topic, do watch it.

History channel.

I recommend that you watch/read some historical texts not written by Americans for an American audience.

Regards.

[Faustus]

Hey now don't this HIST Channel!

[lordsmurf]

I like The History Channel.

[AlecWest]

I wasn't trying to. I was only stating a fact, that some of the people who were locked up were bonafide agents of the Japanese government. That is also unarguable.

But what is the consequence of that fact? You are trying to imply that there was merit in that sort of policy.

I'm implying nothing. I'm merely stating that not all interred people were innocent. Nothing more.

History channel.

I recommend that you watch/read some historical texts not written by Americans for an American audience.

Most people who think that America can do no right feel the same way.

[AlecWest]

But Disney has done it. They should do it again.

I didn't know that. I've seen those cartoons you mention. Disney wasn't alone in their film treatment of "the enemy," either:

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=feature_films&collectionid=japoteurs

Yes, they should use such warnings again. Simply burying the film and making it unavailable is wrong.

[lordsmurf]

Looney Tunes released (almost) all of their racy cartoons on that 5-volume laserdisc set some years back. Famous/Paramount did Superman, Popeye, etc. Excellent WWII/"racist" toons there too. Many of those are released. It's simply history as it relates to filmography. It's hard to plan ahead when you don't know where you've already been.

[AlecWest]

It's hard to plan ahead when you don't know where you've already been.

Amen and hallelujah. That echoes the famous quote by George Santayana ... "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[Doramius]

I'm one of a few people that has many rare movies on DVD legally (we won't go into anything illegal that I may have though )
Here are some of the LEGAL back-ups I have converted to DVD (some from LaserDisc, R2R, VHS, BETA, and my recently acquired CED player)

-StarWars Trilogy (original unremastered Version)
-StarWars Trilogy (Digital Remaster V-1.0)
-The Blue Yonder
-Don't Eat the Pictures: Sesame Street at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
-SuperFuzz (AKA SuperSnooper in the UK)
-The Night They Saved Christmas
-Combat High (AKA Combat Academy in the UK)
-Santabear's First Christmas
-Santabear's High Flying Adventure
-Adventures of Mark Twain (Will Vinton Claymation)
-Mr.Krueger's Christmas
-Song of the South [I do have a legal physical copy]
-The Secret World of OG
-Double Agent (The Disney Version)
-Earth*Star Voyager (AKA Earthstar Voyager & Earth Star Voyager)
-Amazing Stories books 1-5
-Nate & Hayes (AKA Nate and Hayes - adventures of Bully Hayes, starring Tommy Lee Jones)
-An Ewok Adventure (Caravan of Courage)
-Ewoks Battle for Endor
-Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan (unedited versions. The DVD has cut items out for political correctness)
-The Man Who Planted Trees

......and a bunch more, but I'm getting tired of writing down all of the titles.

All 100% legal back-ups. I take a lot of time and effort to collect these classics. Not many people have "Little Toot" on R2R. I'm someone who does.

[Doramius]

I'll update the previous post so you can click on the title and go directly to the IMDB listing of it.

EDIT - IT HAS BEEN UPDATED!

[lordsmurf]

The Ewoks movies were released on DVD. I just threw away my homemade discs and gave away the tapes from which they came.

[Doramius]

That was just recently. My versions are from Laserdisc that have a nice little extra clip that is not on the DVDs. And Lucas still couldn't help himself from adjusting a few things. Mine are the unremastered versions. I do have the new ones on DVD as well. Just the way I am at collecting movies.

[AlecWest]

UPDATE! Looks like I may have solved my own problem regarding the unavailable film, "The Dark at the Top of the Stairs." I went to the IMDB site discussing the movie and read the reviews. One of the reviews was written by a guy who lived in my state (Oregon) who said he'd captured the film on VHS. So, I emailed him to see if I could borrow it.

He replied ... and it turns out he's captured it more than once. Apparently, the movie was "recently" shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel ... in letterbox mode. My cable setup doesn't have that channel, but, I assume there are commercials ... so I asked him if he captured it on one or two VHS tapes. The film, after all, is two-hours-four-minutes long ... and with commercials added in, probably 20 minutes longer. Turns out he "planned" to capture it and, specifically for the purpose, he went out and bought a T-160 (two-hours-forty-minutes) tape so he could tape the whole thing in SP mode.

Anyhoo, he's not only in my state, he's in a suburb of Portland (where I live) only a few miles away. And, in the next week or so, I'll drive to his place to pick up the tape. When I get it home, I'll capture it using my Hauppauge PVR150 card, edit it with Cuttermaran (not TMPGEnc, ugh), and burn it to a DVD. And, as a "thanks" for letting me borrow the tape, I told him I'd burn him a DVD copy as well.

Hoping this works out. I've not seen the tape yet and am only hoping he didn't do something wrong during his recording of it.

Anyhoo, the next time I'm looking for an "unavailable" film, my first stop will be IMDB.com ... to read the reviews and possibly find someone who captured it either digitally or on VHS.

[JohnnyCNote]

Apparently, the movie was "recently" shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel ... in letterbox mode. My cable setup doesn't have that channel, but, I assume there are commercials

TCM doesn't show commercials during the movies.....

[AlecWest]

Apparently, the movie was "recently" shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel ... in letterbox mode. My cable setup doesn't have that channel, but, I assume there are commercials

TCM doesn't show commercials during the movies.....

That's excellent news, thanks. My need to edit will be confined to any pre or post showing stuff that might be on the tape.

Question, while they don't have commercials, does TCM slap one of those niggly station logos on the screen? If so, I'm hoping (since the film is letterboxed) the logo is outside the "active" frame.

[JohnnyCNote]

They do put their channel logo in the lower right corner every so often. It's their way of doing the "station identification" thing, but it's not too intrusive. Also, they show the movies uncut. While most of them are classic films, they show more contemporary ones, too.....

[lordsmurf]

It's funny how cable/satellite tv is now one of the only sources for non-librarian, non-archivists to find public domain movies. Ever tried to rent reels or borrow reels from an archive? Yeah, not easy.