Jump to content

Flower of Gloster - to be released on DVD in Sept. 2015

ChrisJBrady

By ChrisJBrady
in History & Heritage

 Share

Featured Posts

Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

NO . . . why should others have free what we will pay for. Haven't you heard of copyright etc.

THis was hinted at in #45 I must admit I was surprised moderation left it in, particularly as the rules discourage breaking copyright and a post seemed to positively ask for copyright to be breached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

I am having a bit of a row with moderator Athy over this very point but he his not man enough to omit that he has made a mistake on this very point an do remove Laurie's post. I have even had Laurie making contact with me

I assume that the contact you have had with Laurie was friendly and positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Derek R. Veteran

Derek R.

Posted
Posted

Judging by the number of historic film clips already on You Tube that are available for all to see (and seeing them may well induce some to buy the DVD's where they are available) I don't see why such a fuss (if that it be) being made over a sixty year old series. I have a set of BTF films on DVD which are available on You Tube. Netflix is another outlet for more recent films - and old films - and TV series though there is a monthly subscription to pay. Only a short film, but where else would one have known about this film?:

 

Without suggesting someone does it, I'm sure FoG will appear somewhere other than direct from Network though their price is not unreasonable, It's just the way of things today. Perhaps only in a clipped version, that would entice more to buy. But if it's only "until stocks last" and "pre-pay now for delivery in January", which to my suspicious mind rings alarm bells, I probably won't be paying at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Athy Veteran II

AthyDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

I am having a bit of a row with moderator Athy over this very point but he his not man enough to omit that he has made a mistake on this very point an do remove Laurie's post. I have even had Laurie making contact with me

Firstly, there is no "row". It takes two to have a row, and I'm not having one.

 

Secondly, I have re-read the entire thread and can perceive no incitement, by Laurie or anyone else, to have the film displayed on You Tube illegally. The current copyright holder may still be Granada T.V., who still exist, or they may have assigned the rights to a third party. In either case, I took Laurie's post as a request for the copyright holder to display the film on You Tube. Why did you choose to interpret it in a less favourable way?

 

Of course I "omit" that I have made a mistake, because I have not done so. As for your aspersion upon my manhood, I don't think that I will deign to discuss that as it has no relevance here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

I took Laurie's post as a request for the copyright holder to display the film on You Tube. Why did you choose to interpret it in a less favourable way?

 

I interpreted it in a less favourable way because if somebody is planning to release it as a DVD they:

 

1) Either have the copyright or the copyright owners permission.

 

2) They almost certainly plan to take money for the DVD even if it is just to cover the costs of production and any fee the copyright holder may have asked for.

 

Putting it on Youtube would reduce or negate any chance of making money from it. Also it is a vanishingly small chance that the copyright owner is reading this forum to see the request. So I am afraid I in view of the above interpreted it as a request for somebody other than the copyright holder to put it on Youtube.

 

I could be wrong, it has been known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonka Veteran

Tonka

Posted
Posted

I interpreted it in a less favourable way because if somebody is planning to release it as a DVD they:

 

1) Either have the copyright or the copyright owners permission.

 

2) They almost certainly plan to take money for the DVD even if it is just to cover the costs of production and any fee the copyright holder may have asked for.

 

Putting it on Youtube would reduce or negate any chance of making money from it. Also it is a vanishingly small chance that the copyright owner is reading this forum to see the request. So I am afraid I in view of the above interpreted it as a request for somebody other than the copyright holder to put it on Youtube.

 

I could be wrong, it has been known.

 

Of course they could be re-cooping the cost of restoring the film so as to release the dvd

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Athy Veteran II

AthyDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

I interpreted it in a less favourable way because if somebody is planning to release it as a DVD they:

 

1) Either have the copyright or the copyright owners permission.

 

2) They almost certainly plan to take money for the DVD even if it is just to cover the costs of production and any fee the copyright holder may have asked for.

 

Putting it on Youtube would reduce or negate any chance of making money from it. Also it is a vanishingly small chance that the copyright owner is reading this forum to see the request. So I am afraid I in view of the above interpreted it as a request for somebody other than the copyright holder to put it on Youtube.

 

I could be wrong, it has been known.

That's a valid interpretation - just as valid as my assuming that no suggestion of copyright violation was made or implied, which remains my position.

 

Have you not heard of non-exclusive licensing? That means that the copyright holder can license a piece of work (in this case, a film or serial) to a third party, but still has the right to publish it themselves at any time they see fit. I haven't done any film licensing, but I have been involved for many years with music licensing, and this does happen. For example, on one occasion E.M.I. licensed some music to a label I was working for, the label issued the record, and the following year E.M.I. issued it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

That's a valid interpretation - just as valid as my assuming that no suggestion of copyright violation was made or implied, which remains my position.

 

Have you not heard of non-exclusive licensing? That means that the copyright holder can license a piece of work (in this case, a film or serial) to a third party, but still has the right to publish it themselves at any time they see fit. I haven't done any film licensing, but I have been involved for many years with music licensing, and this does happen. For example, on one occasion E.M.I. licensed some music to a label I was working for, the label issued the record, and the following year E.M.I. issued it themselves.

Would they have taken it being put on youtube very happily?

 

I suppose that is basically what I was getting at when I mentioned paying fees to the copyright holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Athy Veteran II

AthyDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

Something blindingly obvious, which should have occurred to me before, has just struck me.

This serial was broadcast in 1967, long before the advent of home video recording equipment. So the only people who could publish it on YouTube would be either the copyright holders, because they have the tapes, or someone to whom they have licensed the serial. No one else will have a way of transferring the programmes to You Tube - a fact which Laurie, with his experience in the film and T.V. industry, will be well aware of. Therefore he cannot possibly have been advocating any illegal action, because he'll know that no one has the means of carrying out such action.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

Something blindingly obvious, which should have occurred to me before, has just struck me.

This serial was broadcast in 1967, long before the advent of home video recording equipment. So the only people who could publish it on YouTube would be either the copyright holders, because they have the tapes, or someone to whom they have licensed the serial. No one else will have a way of transferring the programmes to You Tube - a fact which Laurie, with his experience in the film and T.V. industry, will be well aware of. Therefore he cannot possibly have been advocating any illegal action, because he'll know that no one has the means of carrying out such action.

Sorry but again I interpret it differently. I interpreted it as "when somebody get a copy could they put it on youtube". Particularly as it follows a spate of people announcing they were hoping to get one in January.

 

As I said before I may be wrong but that is how it came over to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laurie Booth Veteran

Laurie BoothDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

NO . . . why should others have free what we will pay for. Haven't you heard of copyright etc.

Yes I have.

:)

I have to admit, I took Laurie's post as a toungue in cheek comment.

 

Eitherway way, for clarity, neather I nor canalworld support copyright theft.

 

 

Daniel

It was said toungue in cheek, hence my :) at the end of the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Derek R. Veteran

Derek R.

Posted
Posted

This sort of reminds me of a theatrical production of Nicholas Nickelby by the Royal Shakespeare Company that was televised in serial parts during the early eighties. I caught some sections of it on VHS at the time for personal viewing, but missed much of it being nearly nine hours in length. On asking if the whole would be available for home purchase, the answer came back no. And if it did, each installment would be around £120. Not until 2003 did a DVD appear through Metrodome and I now have the whole of the production.

 

It's available through Amazon, and not cheap! https://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Adventures-Nicholas-Nickleby-DVD/dp/B0000AM73S

Amazingly enough, we found it in a charity shop for a few pounds. An absolute gem. But I digress (as is my wont!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zenataomm Veteran

zenataommDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

I have to admit, I took Laurie's post as a toungue in cheek comment.

 

Eitherway way, for clarity, neather I nor canalworld support copyright theft.

 

 

Daniel

 

Exactly as we'd expect Daniel ...... but what is your stance on somebody verbally insulting a member of The Staff in public?

 

I am having a bit of a row with moderator Athy over this very point but he his not man enough to omit that he has made a mistake on this very point an do remove Laurie's post. I have even had Laurie making contact with me

 

..... a bit much isn't it?

Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.