Sign in to follow this  
PrinceSaliano

www.vitaphone.org

42 posts in this topic

Guest

what's the website? I went back but can't find it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know anything about the guy who runs the website. As far as I can tell he just posted his interesting list of films. I just went to the website and looked around:

 

http://www.vitaphone.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=drednm wrote:}{quote}

> what's the website? I went back but can't find it....

 

Hey man, whatz the title of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well hopefully he's basically just abandoned the site. He was challenged by people high up in the industry on *alt.movies.silent* a few years back and then he slithered away under the rock he came from. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you try vitaphone.*org*?

 

Thanks for your stern lecture. However, I can think of a number of films I never would have seen if it weren't for "bootleggers". If the studios/copyright holders are too lazy or cheap to make their holdings available, they deserve to be ripped off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Oh... I've seen this site before... I think this thread started with another site as the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the people who are truly being ripped off are the people paying 20, 30, 40 dollars per disc for illegal bootlegs and getting lousy copies with poor visuals and sound quality, and putting themselves at the risk of lawsuit to boot. It's far better to wait and have your first experience of a film be a nice one, a legal print with great sound quality. There have been many films put out by the DVD companies lately that were once only available as terrible looking bootlegs. There have been many films only available as crummy bootlegs before that are finally aired on TCM in good prints.

 

At some point people who buy bootlegs eventually realize they are being suckered by people who don't obey the law and who don't care about the quality of the films they illegally sell. They realize they are being taken advantage of by people who have no morals and no conscience.

 

I don't like the extended copyright laws myself, like Sonny Bono, but they are what they are and believe me, the government takes copyright infringement seriously these days. There is a risk that people who buy from the bootleggers might be sued along with the bootleggers once they are caught and prosecuted, just like the RIAA sues the people who are illegally downloading MP3s. It could cost you several thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to defend yourself.

 

This fellow is very stupid because he leaves that PayPal button up on his site. Even though he later added it's not functional just the fact that he leaves it up is a giveaway he was getting money illegally from people coming into his site. The government just has to get access to his PayPal records and if the people who were his customers are on the list, with names and addresses, the purchasers could be in deep legal doo doo.

 

Nothing is worth a lawsuit. They can take you for everything you've made in your entire life. Read the FBI Warnings sometime at the start of most DVDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but that's besides the point. That's a childish way of looking at the world: I want it, therefore it should be mine. I know some five year olds who think the same way. :)

 

Do you break in and enter a store because you see something you want in their window that's their property? Do you think it automatically should belong to you just because you desire it?

 

Bootleggers don't have a legal right to sell films that do not belong to them. People who buy from bootleggers are also breaking the law and can be charged along with the bootleggers they buy from. You're opening yourself up to legal risk dealing with these people, who are also taking advantage of you and giving you poor quality illegal rip offs for a price.

 

The MPAA, like the RIAA, are suing people right now who thought they could get away with piracy. I don't want anyone here to be next.

 

There are thousands of films on legal DVD to watch and enjoy, films that the studios worked really hard on to get out to the public, films that only a few years ago were only available on crummy bootlegs. When you concentrate only on non-released films on bootleg you're missing out on great films that are legally available in great prints right now.

 

It comes down to the law and it comes down to a person's character, or lack of it. Do they obey the law or do they flout it and say they don't care? I happen to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee! I ask for the meaning of the plus signs on vitaphone.org - thanks for the answer by the way - and an argument over ethics and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ensues.

 

Although goldensilents may be right on the letter of the law, to me, a film is different from personal property in one important way. Your own dinette set is not automatically for sale to anyone who sees it sitting in your kitchen and wants it. The same is true of any art you personally produce. However, film is an industry, and thus individual films were created by the studios for the purpose of being viewed by the public for a price.

 

That's all I ask - a chance to view a film at a price of the studio or rights holder's choice. If they set the price too high for my taste, I can then choose to decline. I think what many people resent is the fact that so many great old films are never going to get released to DVD even in public domain form, while the industry cranks out junk like "The Fast and the Furious - Special Edition".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=goldensilents wrote:}{quote}

> How did Charlie Brown get in here? ;)

>

> If that's all I get as a response I suppose I did my job right. lol!

No, you did not "do your job right". In fact, I find your holier-than-thou attitude offensive...and no further response is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}

> Gee! I ask for the meaning of the plus signs on vitaphone.org - thanks for the answer by the way - and an argument over ethics and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ensues.

>

> Although goldensilents may be right on the letter of the law, to me, a film is different from personal property in one important way. Your own dinette set is not automatically for sale to anyone who sees it sitting in your kitchen and wants it. The same is true of any art you personally produce. However, film is an industry, and thus individual films were created by the studios for the purpose of being viewed by the public for a price.

>

> That's all I ask - a chance to view a film at a price of the studio or rights holder's choice. If they set the price too high for my taste, I can then choose to decline. I think what many people resent is the fact that so many great old films are never going to get released to DVD even in public domain form, while the industry cranks out junk like "The Fast and the Furious - Special Edition".

At last...a voice of reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Although goldensilents may be right on the letter of the law, to me,

 

That's the point, however, there is no "to me" about it. The law states what it states, regardless of how anyone wants to bring their personal opinion into it. The studios who own the properties are not going to care what any individual thinks. If they want to throw the book at a bootlegger and his supporters and buyers, they will, and the courts will apply the law.

 

My intent here was not to have a "holier than thou" attitude. That's a personal attack by someone who has not been able to refute a single point I've made; and it's not what this board should be about. It's to warn people that dealing in bootlegged films can have consequences. I really think most people have no idea what's coming.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502104.html

 

The President this coming week is going to appoint an Internet "Czar", supposedly to "protect" the public, but we all know what it really means: increased license for the government to spy on you online. One of the big things they want to concentrate on is intellectual property cases. The s-c-r-e-w is tightening and that's the main point I want to make. I would have nothing to do with this guy who runs that site. I had to boot him off my own site, for very good reasons. Then he went to alt.silent.movies and he was confronted there and slithered away into the darkness. He's not someone anyone here should become involved with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us