Orbit Media

[batman]

Public domain doesn't apply in the UK unless the title is 70yrs old (I think that's right). Re Hobson's Choice that would be a no, it's not in the public domian.

[JamesM]

Originally Posted by SGT BASH does anybody here know if hobsons choice is in the pd as i have to get a copy for someone and on ebay there is someone selling them that says its in pd. cheers phil

Batman is right as the film would have to wait 70 years after all the composers, writers and directors have died before it would go into the public domain.

These sellers on eBay lie to con unsuspecting people and provide eBay with a 'get-off clause' allowing eBay to continue to benefit from the sales of their piracy. Many of the sellers selling Hobson's Choice on DVD-r on eBay are also selling recent releases from Optimum, Network and ITV DVD that they have just ripped off the official DVDs. These sales undermine the sales of the legitimate copies and adversely affect the chances of films being restored and released properly.

These sellers falsely claim these films to be in the public domain in the UK and talk of UK copyright but go on to quote US copyright law which would never apply to a British film, even in the US itself. They have to know they are providing false information because the copyright status will be visible on the copy they use to make copies from.

If you want to get a copy of Hobson's Choice, the cheapest way to buy it is to get in in the David Lean Collection which is on sale for £17.98 on Amazon.co.uk.

Amazon.co.uk: The David Lean Collection - 9 Disc Box Set: Alec Guinness,Trevor Howard,Celia Johnson,John Mills,Charles Laughton,John Howard Davies,David Lean: DVD

You get 8 other films with it.

Hobson's Choice is being released again in May by Optimum.

[JamesM]

My favourite review for an Orbit Media DVD is the one for Universal's Cat and the Canary (1939):-

"Caught up in rights problems in the US, it seemed like there was little chance of being able to see this film since Universal Studios were unable to release it. However, the people at public domain specialists Orbit Media have been able to somehow get around any problems, and put out a disc version that will please fans of the film who only want to listen to the soundtrack. Those who are able to see will be extremely disappointed - the picture is clearly sourced from an American VHS tape (zoom back on the picture and you can see the signs of VHS head-switching) and has no definition whatsoever. If your idea of a good time is to watch shapeless blobs moving around a screen, then this is the DVD for you. The film itself is deserving of the praise it receives (look at the comments of some of the other reviewers on Amazon - many who posted their comments before the disappointing disc was issued), so if you're really desperate to see it, then the best option is probably to give it a rental and to imagine you're watching it without glasses or contacts in."

by Edit Watch on Amazon.co.uk.

[Amethyst_Isle]

Originally Posted by SGT BASH does anybody here know if hobsons choice is in the pd as i have to get a copy for someone and on ebay there is someone selling them that says its in pd. cheers phil

It is owned by Warner Bros so I very doubt it is in public domain.

A lot of sellers on Ebay say it is in the public domain simply so they can sell them as DVDR's,this happens to a lot of films that are considered quite rare.

[Windthrop]

Originally Posted by Amethyst_Isle It is owned by Warner Bros so I very doubt it is in public domain. A lot of sellers on Ebay say it is in the public domain simply so they can sell them as DVDR's,this happens to a lot of films that are considered quite rare.

It also happens with films recently recorded off TV and then released as 'PD'. In the case of rare films I have no real objection - there are alot of films that could be released legitimately.

[julian_craster]

In my opinion the website E-Bay should be shut down and the company directors brought before the criminal courts for profiteering from illegal trading......The law should also be amended to prevent similar sites starting up

[CaptainWaggett]

Who loses out if I pay a few quid on a dvd-r of a film someone recorded from the telly 20 years ago and which has never been commercially available? Not me - I'm invariably happy with my end of bargain (unless the film turns out to be rubbish which isn't really the fauly of the seller) and not the copyright holders who clearly aren't doing much to exploit their back catalogue. Bootleg copies of commercially-available material are a different matter and I wouldn't get involved in that.

I can honestly say that every single bootleg film I possess, I would gladly have paid £10 or so for a legal copy and at least 80% of them I would definitely replace should a legal copy become available. But that isn't likely to happen with many of them. Why should collecting old films be the privilege of a few elite folk who already have large collections to trade?

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by Amethyst_Isle It is owned by Warner Bros so I very doubt it is in public domain.

It was part of Warners UK holdings, but is now owned by Studio Canal; that re-release from Optimum, is, I understand, coming August, one of 10 Lean films that have been newly restored and will be re-released on DVD as part of the David Lean Centenary celebrations.

And a bootleg, is a bootleg is a bootleg; rare film, commercially available or not...

[CaptainWaggett]

It is indeed - and there's no legal difference between swapping and selling.

[bonger]

Originally Posted by JamesM Batman is right as the film would have to wait 70 years after all the composers, writers and directors have died before it would go into the public domain. These sellers on eBay lie to con unsuspecting people and provide eBay with a 'get-off clause' allowing eBay to continue to benefit from the sales of their piracy. Many of the sellers selling Hobson's Choice on DVD-r on eBay are also selling recent releases from Optimum, Network and ITV DVD that they have just ripped off the official DVDs. These sales undermine the sales of the legitimate copies and adversely affect the chances of films being restored and released properly. These sellers falsely claim these films to be in the public domain in the UK and talk of UK copyright but go on to quote US copyright law which would never apply to a British film, even in the US itself. They have to know they are providing false information because the copyright status will be visible on the copy they use to make copies from. If you want to get a copy of Hobson's Choice, the cheapest way to buy it is to get in in the David Lean Collection which is on sale for £17.98 on Amazon.co.uk. Amazon.co.uk: The David Lean Collection - 9 Disc Box Set: Alec Guinness,Trevor Howard,Celia Johnson,John Mills,Charles Laughton,John Howard Davies,David Lean: DVD You get 8 other films with it. Hobson's Choice is being released again in May by Optimum.

You dead right old boy, although (im not defending them) copyright laws can get confusing for the average joe.

And the bit I have highlighted doesnt really stand up as most companies that release public domain stuff put this on their packaging to put off would be competitors. Ie you can't trust them either, its a cut throat business, they will add a small logo into the film somewhere, and sue people for trademark to stop people like orbit using deltas twinky release as a master. As I think it is an offense to claim ANY rights over anything PD.

To be honest with the epidemic of piracy going on, the film companies have to concentrate on protecting their front high revenue catalogue, and this back end old stuff doesnt get worried about as much.

As John says tho, still techically illegal. Although I personally think that copyright laws as they are often mean that alot of great films dissapear thanks to a films company who has a copyright on it, and thinks it wont make them enough money, so the film becomes unavailable as they wont make it anymore.

I think this kind of thing should be stopped. This is why the public domain exists, and big companies have pushed the laws in their favour so much with their money, that alot of classic films are practically lost in whoevers basement, they wont let anyone else produce it, and wont produce it themselves.

I think copyright laws should last for about 10-15 years. Top stars should get a more normal pay for what is just another days work, their money should go into new film stars.

Working in the film industry I can vouch you have never seen such a bone idol, arrogant lot who think the world owes them a living in all your life. The copyright law needs to be changed back to encourage actors to keep making films, keep old films being produced, and stop the fat cat few milking the rest of the industry.

You could argue that piracy, steals from the rich films stars, and helps the poor afford more. What kind of world do we live in where Tom Cruise who essentially is just playing around on video to entertain us for a bit of fun, is more valuable financially than a cancer research scientist trying to save lives?

Did any of you guys see the tv programme about counterfiets the other night?. Some USA cop proudly burning a mountain of fake cloths he had busted, whilst claiming he was born to stop bad guys. Burning perfectly good cloths he could give to people that need them, not to mention the polution when we are all told to be green. Just cut the labels out and send them to africa, this cop was the real bad guy but not bright enough to think for himself (like 90% of cops!).

The goverment crushing perfectly good cars because people haven't bought a paper disc from them to stick in the window. Can you think of anything more wastefull than crushing perfectly good working cars, and then replaceing them with new ones. I for one will laugh at any goverment enviormental plans.

So I guess what I am trying to say is dont just think about it black and white, illegal and not illegal, often the people making the laws aren't very bright.

Wow that was a long post... Ill be waiting for the eruption of abuse!

[MrT]

The Gowers Report set up by the UK government to look into Copyright law has made some recommendations which, if implemented, may ease the situation. When dealing with films made in the 30s and 40s and where the current copyright holder is currently unknown, it is suggested that they be designated as "orphan" works. Such works could be used freely if all reasonable steps to trace the copyright holders fail.

This would surely help make available many long lost classics, many of which were produced by small independent comapnies and studios, most of whom went bust or were taken over many many years ago. To leave these films in limbo as the present legislation demands is madness and also very sad, because much of our film heritage is being denied to us.

Mike (MrT)

[Edward G]

Must respectfully disagree, Captain Waggett.

Whatever the legal distinction much commercially unavailable (but desirable) content is not released by copyright holders because they see it as marginal or unlikely to sell highly enough to justify restoration, re-packaging, distribution and release. The only consumers therefore who actively want this material are people like the users of this forum, who share an enthusiasm for the content. I always trade and would never demand cash for anything I have to trade. Without exception if something is commercially available I will but it and pay a fair price for it by hunting around.

A legitimate release is more likely to be better quality and have added content and a proper DVD menu, for example. I have spent a fair amount over the past few years and avoid industry bootlegs like the plague.
If I want a copy of Arena's famous 1982 documentary of Orson Welles "The Orson Welles Story" how can I get hold of a copy? The BBC have never released it (and are unlikely to). Nor has it been issued with any other titles from the vast Orson Welles catalogue....What do you think I should do ? Write to the BBC and campaign for the release of all the oddities I might be interested in?! This applies to so may titles. Even if they wanted to, broadcaster's would be unable to release all their vast back catalogues.

If I trade a copy of Orson Welles's doc who am I defrauding ? Not the BBC who do not offer it commercially. I am not gaining financially from the sale ! Who is going to pay for such an item? Not a spotty teenager loking for a cut-price version of the latest Spiderman flick .Only real enthiusiasts would go to the trouble of hunting down this kind of stuff in the first place....

The enemy here are commercial bootleggers, often operating within the broadcast industry, who pirate new and widely available commercial releases and add nothing to the value of the product. They are also defrauding the actors, film studios, copyright holders and publishers...

Many of us on this forum trade titles but the concensus seems to be to swap commercially unavailable and often forgotten material that would otherwise slide into oblivion anyway.

What do the rest of us think?

Originally Posted by CaptainWaggett It is indeed - and there's no legal difference between swapping and selling.

[CaptainWaggett]

Actually we seem to be in perfect agreement, Edward G. It's a fact that the law regards swapping and selling as the same. I have no moral qualms about either - if the material isn't commercially available or likely to become so. However, it seems a little mean to deny those who don't already have extensive collections, or indeed the technological know-how/means to make copies, the pleasure of building up a collection. I have no problem with paying a few pounds to cover the time/costs of someone else making a copy of a film I'm looking for and don't see how this defrauds anyone. And I would happily replace at least 80% of the bootlegs I own with legitimate copies.

[Edward G]

This is the crux of the problem for potential collectors, Captain Wiggett.
It takes a lot of persistence and patience to break into the trading loop.
I'm still near the bottom rung myself...
A bit like an inexperienced actor trying to get an Equity card!
Regards,
Edward G.

Originally Posted by CaptainWaggett Actually we seem to be in perfect agreement, Edward G. It's a fact that the law regards swapping and selling as the same. I have no moral qualms about either - if the material isn't commercially available or likely to become so. However, it seems a little mean to deny those who don't already have extensive collections, or indeed the technological know-how/means to make copies, the pleasure of building up a collection. I have no problem with paying a few pounds to cover the time/costs of someone else making a copy of a film I'm looking for and don't see how this defrauds anyone. And I would happily replace at least 80% of the bootlegs I own with legitimate copies.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by bonger YWorking in the film industry I can vouch you have never seen such a bone idol, arrogant lot who think the world owes them a living in all your life.

Oh, but acting is so difficult, it must be the hardest job in the world - or so actors always tell us

Of course when it's done well and done properly it can be quite difficult. But selecting those that do it well and do it properly cuts out 99% of them.

And if they'd ever done a real job then they'd know how difficult that can be and they would have a level of difficulty to compare against. But selecting those that have had a real job cuts out another 99% of them

And that's just the actors, many directors, producers and people doing other associated jobs are just as bad

Steve