Orbit Media - Page 4 - Britmovie

russell99 · 10-03-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batman

Mr Wilkens states, "During the movie the name Delta appears a number of times on your screen."

I have two or three DVDs by a company called Delta (they released the Hannay series) and on some of their discs the logo 'delta' appears. They appear to have nothing to do with Orbit, so why does that logo appear onscreen during the Orbit release of Twinky?

Ok this is getting more like it, someone actually posted something that could be grounds for a belief that they are illegal.

However this still doesnt tie in with JamesM's allegations, if Granada only license on an exclusive license to Network, what the heck is Delta doing on there!

Shock horror maybe Delta are illegal bootleggers too.

However this is still no proof. It seems only JamesM knows the facts, he just seems reluctant to share them.

When you also look up 'Amazon Policer' on amazon, he has numerous claims of criminal activity, (all of which have been ignored) I wonder about the credibility of him, has he been looking at the FACT website too much!

russell99 · 10-03-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesM

The only person who I can see who has edited your posts is you!

I have not removed or edited your posts so do not follow my post with yet another entirely false accusation. You need to decide whether you accused me in error OR leave us to believe that you deliberately attempted to mislead people on this forum to believe that I have been deleting and editing your posts.

Which is it?

Please provide the grounds for you claims that Orbit Media LTD are criminals breaking copyright law, stealing from Granada.

Thats the 4th time I have asked.

JamesM · 10-03-2008, 01:13 PM

The problem is Russell, you did not start with a question. You started with a claim that I have made a libellous statement and proceeded to insult me. Had you have started with that question, I would have been prepared to answer it.

As long as my posts are acceptable to the owners of this forum, I can post whatever I like. The moderators of this forum have the power to dictate what happens on this forum and how members should behave. I am one of these moderators and have pointed out that you have behaved inappropriately. I have given you a chance to explain why you categorically stated that my statement was libellous. You have subsequently falsely accused me of deleting and editing your posts. I also gave you a chance to explain why you did that. You have failed to respond to either request and, as such, I am going to have to give you a final warning. If you do not answer my questions, I am going to recommend that you be banned.

I have made hundreds of comments about various third parties, none of which I have to prove upon the demands of someone who lays no claim to know otherwise. You have, however, made claims against ME. Because I am the party involved, I have a right to demand that you back them up.

If you wish to dispute my original post, you may do so by claiming that you know that Orbit Media did acquire the rights to release Twinky on DVD, if that is what you believe. You also need to explain why you made a claim after my post, which had followed one of yours, that I had edited and deleted posts of yours, which I categorically state I did not. I have the power to delete and edit posts but so do at least six other people.

You do not have to explain why you started with a claim that you joined "in fury" to respond to my post, yet had actually joined two and a half weeks earlier. That is your business.

John Hodson · 10-03-2008, 02:55 PM

Strange thread...

Russell is correct; we should probably not accuse others of illegal activity without evidence, however circumstantial...which in this case is pretty weighty.

We know that Granada International are the right and proper UK copyright holders of the film Twinky, I know this because I have the Granada rights catalogue.

We know that the film is available in the U.S.A. (under the title 'Lola'), not by any reputable rights holders (the rights appear to be all over the pace over there), but by a variety of distributors, the usual purveyors of dubious material, including it should be noted, Delta.

We don't know - for fact - that Granada haven't given Orbit license to produce it in the UK, despite them licensing it out properly to Network, despite the Orbit transfer being so bad it should be stamped with a health warning, despite the fact that in the catalogue of piss-poor, substandard, scratched, cut, blurred and mucked around with films in said catalogue there is not one other title licensed or not from Granada. Despite the fact that not one of the half dozen back covers of Orbit titles I've looked at shows the usual studio copyright notice, nothing save 'layout and design Orbit Media'. But why should they grant Orbit a licence; it's defies sound business practice, never mind common sense.

As a small aside, we know that the practice of producing bootleg material, and for that material to appear in shops and on-line, is pretty common worldwide, something the home entertainment industry is concerned about. No less an authority than film restorer Robert Harris recently railed against a number of Hitchcock films which are not in the public domain being produced without license, including a number of titles which are available from Orbit.

We also know that Criterion - since Russell asks the question - are very concerned about bootleg copies of their titles appearing worldwide, particularly in the Asian market.

Why are these people not pursued to the ends of the earth? Sometimes the case of illegal activity is clear sometimes it is not; we are talking niche films here, not Hollywood blockbusters, pursuing sometimes tangled copyright issues through the courts for such films costs considerable time and money, effort some may think outweighs the potential profit which would result. They may also expose legal loopholes that simply worsens an already poor situation. It is an issue these parasites depend on.

I said earlier:
'Orbit - like many other dubious outfits worldwide - may be playing fast and loose with certain titles the rights for which may be, let's say, 'murky', they may have a loose interpretation of what is actually 'legal'; that doesn't stop them being low-rent, low-grade bootleggers'

And I stand by it, every word. Anyone who thinks Orbit have paid for licenses for their Bob Hope films, the Sherlock Holmes films, the Hitchcock movies - Twinky - is living in cloud cuckoo land. Playing fast and loose with the law across the the continents is one thing, foisting terrible, absolutely awful, product onto unsuspecting punters is entirely another.

It's an issue for which Orbit, and anyone who supports them and their kind, should be rightfully ashamed.

And bootleg; 'to produce, reproduce, or distribute without authorization or license.' I don't give a damn whether these films are 'illegal' or have fallen into public domain - to con buyers into spending their cash on worthless transfers, to perhaps reduce the chances of proper, decent transfers from the actual rights holders, who may consider that any profits have already been milked, is. Not. Right.

I haven't got a clue why Russell feels he has to stand up for this shower and their awful, terrible, business practices, and to be honest I don't really care, but if he can prove that they hold a proper license from Granada for the red herring that Twinky has become, while it will not change my views on Orbit in the slightest, I will donate £100 to the charity of his choice.

russell99 · 10-03-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesM

The problem is Russell, you did not start with a question. You started with a claim that I have made a libellous statement and proceeded to insult me. Had you have started with that question, I would have been prepared to answer it.

As long as my posts are acceptable to the owners of this forum, I can post whatever I like. The moderators of this forum have the power to dictate what happens on this forum and how members should behave. I am one of these moderators and have pointed out that you have behaved inappropriately. I have given you a chance to explain why you categorically stated that my statement was libellous. You have subsequently falsely accused me of deleting and editing your posts. I also gave you a chance to explain why you did that. You have failed to respond to either request and, as such, I am going to have to give you a final warning. If you do not answer my questions, I am going to recommend that you be banned.

I have made hundreds of comments about various third parties, none of which I have to prove upon the demands of someone who lays no claim to know otherwise. You have, however, made claims against ME. Because I am the party involved, I have a right to demand that you back them up.

If you wish to dispute my original post, you may do so by claiming that you know that Orbit Media did acquire the rights to release Twinky on DVD, if that is what you believe. You also need to explain why you made a claim after my post, which had followed one of yours, that I had edited and deleted posts of yours, which I categorically state I did not. I have the power to delete and edit posts but so do at least six other people.

You do not have to explain why you started with a claim that you joined "in fury" to respond to my post, yet had actually joined two and a half weeks earlier. That is your business.

All irrelevant trivia... Back to the theme of the thread: on what grounds do you base your claims that Orbit Media are 'bootleggers' breaking the law?

5th time I have asked you.......

russell99 · 10-03-2008, 03:42 PM

So to cut out all the waffle from your post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hodson

We don't know - for fact - that Granada haven't given Orbit license to produce it in the UK,

So you admit you dont know what licenses they do and don't have. You therefore have no idea really if they are bootleggers or not.

You have in fact told people on this forum they are criminals, breaking the Copyrights act, when in fact you have no idea if this is true or not.

You comments contstitute the Libel agains Orbit Media LTD.

Rather embarrasing situation for you I think after all this fuss!

DB7 · 10-03-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by russell99

You comments contstitute the Libel agains Orbit Media LTD.

Contact a lawyer then.

russell99 · 10-03-2008, 03:48 PM

Hmm I think there is some manipulating the forum going on again hey guys!

If this post stays, someone has been deleting and changing posts again!

What kind of forum is this!

DB7 · 10-03-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by russell99

What kind of forum is this!

A naughty one, now phone them lawyers.

russell99 · 10-03-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DB7

Contact a lawyer then.

I just think it is fair that people dont go around spreading a pack of lies they have no idea about.

More so from forum moderators on movie forums about movie companies.

People assume a moderator would be a good decent honest person, level headed and with good judgement and trust them when they accuse others of illegal activities.

DB7 · 10-03-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by russell99

I just think it is fair that people dont go around spreading a pack of lies they have no idea about.

I admire your moral stance, with your sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play.

JamesM · 10-03-2008, 04:38 PM

For the benefit of the rest of forum members, Russell999 is lying when he claims his posts are edited. As everyone who is familiar with this forum knows, when edits are made, the name of the person who made the last edit would appear in the post.

Amethyst_Isle · 10-03-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesM

For the benefit of the rest of forum members, Russell999 is lying when he claims his posts are edited. As everyone who is familiar with this forum knows, when edits are made, the name of the person who made the last edit would appear in the post.

That is true JamesM,as one of my posts was edited by DB7 (justly I might add as I made a few mistakes in my thread

) and indeed does name the person who made the last edit.

Harbottle · 10-03-2008, 05:46 PM

Loondon is that anywhere near Nutsford?

JamesM · 10-03-2008, 05:47 PM

Thankyou Amethyst.

Our Russell obviously has a problem with reading as well as spelling.Basic concepts are obviously beyond him.

I responded to his first comment but thus far failed to address the question I posed in my response.

10-03-2008, 02:55 PM	#49
John Hodson has no status. Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bolton, Lancashire Posts: 92 Country: iTrader: (0)	Strange thread... Russell is correct; we should probably not accuse others of illegal activity without evidence, however circumstantial...which in this case is pretty weighty. We know that Granada International are the right and proper UK copyright holders of the film Twinky, I know this because I have the Granada rights catalogue. We know that the film is available in the U.S.A. (under the title 'Lola'), not by any reputable rights holders (the rights appear to be all over the pace over there), but by a variety of distributors, the usual purveyors of dubious material, including it should be noted, Delta. We don't know - for fact - that Granada haven't given Orbit license to produce it in the UK, despite them licensing it out properly to Network, despite the Orbit transfer being so bad it should be stamped with a health warning, despite the fact that in the catalogue of piss-poor, substandard, scratched, cut, blurred and mucked around with films in said catalogue there is not one other title licensed or not from Granada. Despite the fact that not one of the half dozen back covers of Orbit titles I've looked at shows the usual studio copyright notice, nothing save 'layout and design Orbit Media'. But why should they grant Orbit a licence; it's defies sound business practice, never mind common sense. As a small aside, we know that the practice of producing bootleg material, and for that material to appear in shops and on-line, is pretty common worldwide, something the home entertainment industry is concerned about. No less an authority than film restorer Robert Harris recently railed against a number of Hitchcock films which are not in the public domain being produced without license, including a number of titles which are available from Orbit. We also know that Criterion - since Russell asks the question - are very concerned about bootleg copies of their titles appearing worldwide, particularly in the Asian market. Why are these people not pursued to the ends of the earth? Sometimes the case of illegal activity is clear sometimes it is not; we are talking niche films here, not Hollywood blockbusters, pursuing sometimes tangled copyright issues through the courts for such films costs considerable time and money, effort some may think outweighs the potential profit which would result. They may also expose legal loopholes that simply worsens an already poor situation. It is an issue these parasites depend on. I said earlier: 'Orbit - like many other dubious outfits worldwide - may be playing fast and loose with certain titles the rights for which may be, let's say, 'murky', they may have a loose interpretation of what is actually 'legal'; that doesn't stop them being low-rent, low-grade bootleggers' And I stand by it, every word. Anyone who thinks Orbit have paid for licenses for their Bob Hope films, the Sherlock Holmes films, the Hitchcock movies - Twinky - is living in cloud cuckoo land. Playing fast and loose with the law across the the continents is one thing, foisting terrible, absolutely awful, product onto unsuspecting punters is entirely another. It's an issue for which Orbit, and anyone who supports them and their kind, should be rightfully ashamed. And bootleg; 'to produce, reproduce, or distribute without authorization or license.' I don't give a damn whether these films are 'illegal' or have fallen into public domain - to con buyers into spending their cash on worthless transfers, to perhaps reduce the chances of proper, decent transfers from the actual rights holders, who may consider that any profits have already been milked, is. Not. Right. I haven't got a clue why Russell feels he has to stand up for this shower and their awful, terrible, business practices, and to be honest I don't really care, but if he can prove that they hold a proper license from Granada for the red herring that Twinky has become, while it will not change my views on Orbit in the slightest, I will donate £100 to the charity of his choice. __________________ filmjournal.net/john Last edited by John Hodson; 10-03-2008 at 03:08 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-03-2008, 01:13 PM	#48
JamesM has no status. Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London Posts: 1,413 Country: iTrader: (0)	The problem is Russell, you did not start with a question. You started with a claim that I have made a libellous statement and proceeded to insult me. Had you have started with that question, I would have been prepared to answer it. As long as my posts are acceptable to the owners of this forum, I can post whatever I like. The moderators of this forum have the power to dictate what happens on this forum and how members should behave. I am one of these moderators and have pointed out that you have behaved inappropriately. I have given you a chance to explain why you categorically stated that my statement was libellous. You have subsequently falsely accused me of deleting and editing your posts. I also gave you a chance to explain why you did that. You have failed to respond to either request and, as such, I am going to have to give you a final warning. If you do not answer my questions, I am going to recommend that you be banned. I have made hundreds of comments about various third parties, none of which I have to prove upon the demands of someone who lays no claim to know otherwise. You have, however, made claims against ME. Because I am the party involved, I have a right to demand that you back them up. If you wish to dispute my original post, you may do so by claiming that you know that Orbit Media did acquire the rights to release Twinky on DVD, if that is what you believe. You also need to explain why you made a claim after my post, which had followed one of yours, that I had edited and deleted posts of yours, which I categorically state I did not. I have the power to delete and edit posts but so do at least six other people. You do not have to explain why you started with a claim that you joined "in fury" to respond to my post, yet had actually joined two and a half weeks earlier. That is your business.

10-03-2008, 03:48 PM	#53
russell99 has no status. Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: loondon Posts: 17 Country: iTrader: (0)	Hmm I think there is some manipulating the forum going on again hey guys! If this post stays, someone has been deleting and changing posts again! What kind of forum is this!

10-03-2008, 04:38 PM	#57
JamesM has no status. Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London Posts: 1,413 Country: iTrader: (0)	For the benefit of the rest of forum members, Russell999 is lying when he claims his posts are edited. As everyone who is familiar with this forum knows, when edits are made, the name of the person who made the last edit would appear in the post.

10-03-2008, 05:46 PM	#59
Harbottle is potty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Hampshire Posts: 1,238 My Mood: Country: iTrader: (16)	Loondon is that anywhere near Nutsford?

10-03-2008, 05:47 PM	#60
JamesM has no status. Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London Posts: 1,413 Country: iTrader: (0)	Thankyou Amethyst. Our Russell obviously has a problem with reading as well as spelling.Basic concepts are obviously beyond him. I responded to his first comment but thus far failed to address the question I posed in my response.