Badmovies.org Forum

(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/2933/1230507235914za4.jpg)

The one I really hate is on the Banacek DVD's.  Not just a piracy warning, but a little vignette with two guys, one of whom has a pirated copy of a some movie, the other who has stolen a car.  Same thing, you know.  For one thing, it's a horrible and utterly inaccurate analogy, for another thing it's stupid, lasts a while, and of course it cannot be skipped.  Why the hell do they put this crap on DVD's?  I obviously bought your damned DVD, otherwise I wouldn't be seeing this. 

I rent these DVD's from the phillpenes where you cannot fast forward through the 10 minute ad, it's insane.  one indian company has their logo on the screen for the entire movie.  it's also insane

Downloading films is just like ripping out a human heart!!!!!!

Seriously PC games have gone the same way with spore being the most pirated game of 2008 due to the activation anti piracy crap. Basically you rent the game if the server goes down or it counts itself installed onto 5 computers it will stop working. When I say 5 computers, a hardware upgrade can trigger it to add one to the count. Over a few years it could decide it been installed 5 times and just stop working. Meaning you have to buy a new copy. All this anti piracy is doing is killing the 2nd hand market.

Now enough of the more serious forms of anti piracy being used on software.

Do the adverts work on anyone? Seriously I fail to see how downloading a copy of a file is equal to stealing a car. I am half expecting them to claim it funds gangs, drugs and terrorism. (I say only half I checked out one anti piracy website which claimed all 3)

Now to brighten the mood.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg

I agree that the ads are crazy, since by definition they only get placed on legitimate copies.  And I hate anything on DVD that can't be skipped, including Dolby ads, copyright notices, the distributor's own logo and sometimes even pre-menu sequences that go on to long.

But I have to take exception to the attitude behind the statement "I fail to see how downloading a copy of a file is equal to stealing a car."  True, it's not as serious as stealing a car, but it is equal to stealing a DVD.  It's a difference of quantity, but not of quality.  Stealing 20 dollars isn't the same as stealing 5,000 dollars, but they are both stealing. 

Piracy is a serious problem and I don't know how it can ever be addressed.  Obviously ads don't work.  Obviously the RIAA's strategy of suing little fish has turned public opinion against enforcing copyrights.  I can't think of a strategy that will convince people that piracy is morally wrong.  It's just too easy to download pirated stuff for free, it doesn't feel like stealing because you don't have to sneak around, cut alarm wires and wear a ski mask.  People also have a depressing capacity to convince themselves that what they're doing isn't wrong when it feels good.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but it bugs the hell out of me.  The people trying to keep freeloaders from taking their hard work without compensation are viewed as the bad guys, while the people selfishly taking whatever they want without paying for it are given a free pass. 

It is not equal to stealing a DVD all you are receiving is a clone of a file. I refuse to see this as stealing and to be fair when I saw Spore was so heavily pirated (even before release as it was leaked) I let out a cheer. What took place on a lot of the recent PC games sent a direct message about the anti piracy BS protection now on games. The only victim is a large company who aim is to max out profit, the music industry is a prime example when they where failing to stop downloading they came out with legal downloading. Cheap and safe downloading, it would be excellent to see some legal movie downloads.

Saying that I still prefer dvds which is why I crawl through online bargin bins to expand my collection. I have no issues with people downloading and many ways I see it as a good thing in the case of the recent developments in the PC games industry.
Well lets first focus on the morally wrong part, morals are subjective. I do not see it as morally wrong for people to pirate its their own PC they are putting at risk from virus's and spyware.

Again it very subjective I do not consider it wrong for people to do this its not really comparable to running around stealing from peoples homes.


There are many worse things than piracy. Its not like their actions hurt you in anyway except the stupid anti piracy protection and ads.

Lets try and put this in prospective.

(http://www.anotherstateofmind.net/pirate%20flag.JPG)

Yarrrrrrrrr!

That's the spirit, 'they can't catch me, so nerts to them!'

Yes pirating a dvd is a copy of a file that you never owned, and therefore, legally speaking, tis piracy and illegal.

To say that the only victim is the 'large companies' is plainly idiotic.  I've talked to musicians, some reasonably well known here, who have openly complained to me that none of the little people can make any money selling records anymore because it's so easy to just download their music.  If they're big enough they make do, but when you used to be able to eke out a modest living being an average, lesser known artist/musician, now you can only make your money touring, and not everyone has the ability to tour for 11 months of the year.

People are affected, the whole 'big corporation' bollocks is just trying to justify something that is illegal.

I partake in illegal activity, whether it be the occasional jaywalk or downloading music etc, but if I created something, poured my heart and soul into it, darn it I'd want to get paid.

First, thanks to Dean for backing me up.  The reason I oppose piracy so strongly is because I'm on the side of the creator, not the consumer.

No disrespect intended, Mr. P, but I think all your arguments were covered by my statement "People also have a depressing capacity to convince themselves that what they're doing isn't wrong when it feels good."

We don't have some basic human right to be entertained that evil capitalists infringe by charging prices higher than we would like, or including anti-pirtacy features that we don't happen to like. 

Not that I'm immune to rationalization.  I made illegal copies of stuff when I was younger, and I don't think I'm going to hell for it.  I made arguments to myself similar to the ones you're making now, but I eventually realized I wasn't being honest with myself.  I realized that I took that stuff only because I wanted it to satisfy my selfish urge to be entertained.  My only ethical defense could be "It's OK for me to do whatever I want", and I'm incapable of adopting that as a princinciple to live by.


I am putting it in perspective.  To my way of thinking, saying that because a social problem is less serious than child poverty it should be ignored is putting things in a skewed perspective. 

Musicians make most of their money from tours. However small musicians are heavily reliant from money from Cd's.

Again the only way to really stop downloading is to provide safe legal downloads which are cheap so it outways the illegal free risk of virus or spyware methods. Change is required to keep up with modern technology.

Alot of bands have to sell well to be able to even fund getting out on the road for a decent tour. They have to then make a decent amount to pay themselves and then have money available to afford getting back into to the studio. It's not like the old days at all and I believe music is sufferring because of it. Everyone seems to be obsessed with flash in the pan crap that has 3 seconds of melody they like until they get bored and move on to something else just because their Ipod can hold even more crap. This is why all the good metal bands always tour scandinavian Europe more than anywhere else. There's still a market there and they make the most money to be able to keep putting albums out.

I'll admit I've downloaded music, but it's one song here and there from 20-30 years ago and then I usually buy the album anyway. Like the old days, you here a song, it's great, but you wait a month or two for the album, it sells well, you go to the big arena tour and everyone goes home happy. Those days are long gone, that's why I'm heading out to every arena show I can get to. They will fade away, as they won't get filled like they used to, 90% of artists around today will not have a career lasting 30-40 years like the Rolling Stones or KISS. Some are lucky they get 2-3, because they are garbage and there is too many forms of media overkill for the masses of idiots with no taste.  :hatred:

The main solution would be to move with the times. Selling cheap music downloads would allow a wider audience buy their music.

How ever I do agree with you but the main music I listen to is alternative stuff for example anti flag, the international noise conspiracy and no respect. Which I happily pay for their albums if I feel the need to expand my music collection.

I also agree that most the main stream stuff is mass produced rubbish which I can not stand. (most new movies for example)

I watched a film by an independent group on a low budget called Sex and Blood nightmare which gave me the wonderful 'WTF' feeling that only some of the best B movies give me. Sex scenes with some very gory deaths all loosely following a plot that a ghost has come back to kill which he does lots off until hes ummmm killed by his reflection. Awful film but very funny from a plot and script point of view.

I definitely agree with the fact that we need a better way to help support the music scene online.  Cheap downloads exist but I assume it's hard to get universal agreement with all the big studios about charges etc.  The reality is, though, even with Legal downloads available, it is sooooo easy to download music without consequence and alot of people, myself at times included, just won't care: if you can get it for free, then why bother paying for it?

It's a tough one.  Looking at the future, and the only way at the moment I see illegal downloads getting curbed in a big way is for the goverment and ISPs to take a much tighter grip on the internet, and I don't like the idea of that at all.

Theres always been this problem of piracy!
Bootlegs, tax on blank audio tapes. Radio shows in the 1970s used to play whole records of bands and people would sit by their stereos and record. American Hardcore groups of the late 70's early 80's used to be full of bravado if their record or show was bootlegged around the country.

I dunno what to think really. If you're an underground musician or a b-movie maker, you can't expect to make money out of what your doing, or even make a living out of it. You'd be lucky to make a living out of it. You're in it for the love of it; to be an alternative form of media.
In my expirience these artists all say different things. Some tell me its totally cool to bootleg; others say it's evil; they're not consistent, how can they expect their audience to be?
If you want to make money off it, you sell-out and change your art, and sign contracts with evil companies who you hate; who you previously bought recording equipment from-- now you endorse it!

Here's another thing, Sony, and other media companies sell us gear knowlingly that we can use it to duplicate productions-- yet we are told not to by the same people. Everyone has business dealings with eachother; it's all hypocritical and round-about. The only thing that makes sense to me is to not copy stuff and turn around and sell it, because it doesn't benefit the artist or it's distributor.

What about buying used copies of media? This doesn't benefit the artist, but it's not illegal. However, It doesn't even add more wealth to the GDP.

What about the case with most old b-movies? I'm sure distributors like Millcreek or Alpha Video just wrote the producers of the movies a check to buy rights to their replication, and that the producers don't make any money off the sales. Maybe even the distributors bought the rights off other distributors. How about the actors and the production crew? The were probably given checks (if that) during or after production.

It's all a chain of dealings; woe to they who are the weakest link and get the worst deal.

Selling used copies is legal under a practical legal rule called the "first sale doctrine."  It would be illegal to make a copy to keep for yourself and then sell the original.  Secondhand sales do add some wealth to the GDP; when I sell you my used copy of BLOODSUCKING VIXENS FROM VENUS for $5 I get money that I wouldn't have had otherwise, which I then spend on a delicious bottle of Thunderbird wine (yum!) that I otherwise wouldn't have bought. If I copy my DVD and trade it to you for your copy of THE GORE-GORE GIRLS, then there is no increase in GDP. 

Don't know about Alpha Video, but Mill Creek uses public domain movies so they don't have to pay anyone.  That's not a bad thing; it's absolutely a good thing.  The producers got their chance to make their money during the movie's original run, now it belongs to the public and anyone can copy it.  I think things should fall into the public domain much more quickly than they do currently.  Industry lobbyists have gotten the length of copyright extended beyond all reason. 

Most actors, and all production crew, get paid a flat fee for their work and don't get royalties.  Some actors and directors have enough pull to get a share of the back end residuals. Often they still get little or nothing, because most films aren't profitable.  The 10% of movies that are hits subsidize the other 90% that lose money.

Musicians (other than "session" musicians) are different; they may depend on royalties for an income stream.

But you prevented someone from buying a new copy. On a wider scale you decreased the demand for reproductions, and slackened hiring for that firm.
No new wealth was brought into the economy, instead more was paid on the same DVD and the money circulated into a different area.


In most cases it's the distributors who are being ripped-off, not the production crew or actors. But a different distributor will sell me blank disks, and I can burn copies.


I overlooked independent record labels. Theres also indepedent movie companies like Troma. The problem with these guys is that they dont always have the money to issue reprints so I'd have to pay more for a used copy than new. Then what's the difference if I burn a copy from my friends; or buy from some douche off amazon whose I stuff I may never recieve from, or get a scuffed up copy?

If these labels or companies did have copies available, I totally buy. But I know that the artists do have a day job. It would be great if they could quit their day jobs and make artwork, so ours jobs are more bearable-- but it's unlikely. Also,  I don't feel like I'm fully enjoying the product if it's a burned-copy.

True, but only IF the buyer would have paid for a new copy had no used copy been available.  I'll pay $5 for a used copy of the GORE-GORE GIRLS, but I wouldn't pay $20 for a brand new copy, because I don't want to see it that much.  There are some people who value the DVD enough to buy it new.  There are others who wouldn't buy a new copy even if one were available; they'd just spend their money on something else.  So, if you buy G-G G for $20 and resell it to me for $5 later, together we've injected $25 into the economy instead of $20.  The secondhand market helps to maximize the wealth created by the original product because it captures the value assigned to the product by both of us.       

The same theory applies to rentals.  Netflix adds lots of value to the economy because they squeeze money out of renters who wouldn't pay to buy a copy anyway.


It's a good point in an economic sense, if not an ethical sense, that those who make the hardware and software that assist people to make illegal reproductions add some value to the economy. 

The cheaper it is for people to make and utilize reproductions, however, the less wealth is created.  Someone who watches a commercially available movie on youtube on their mom's computer is a total leech off the economy; they don't even add the value that would be created by buying a pirated copy.   


I don't think it's really a question of independent vs. major label in the recording industry.  Any label will advance money to the recording artist to pay for the costs of producing, advertising, and distributing the CD, and a little something for the artists as well.  If the album sells well the company makes its money back (which rarely happens).  If it actually makes a profit, then the label splits part of that profit with the artist in the form of royalties.  Moviemaking operates on similar principles. 

What's the difference in the three scenarios you propose?  In the first, you do something illegal and (in my opinion) immoral that gets you what you want.  In the second two, you do the right thing from a societal perspective, but through bad luck you end up getting screwed personally. 

I'll add that I think it's far less objectionable to make copies of things that are truly OOP and otherwise unavailable, and that the copyright holder shows no signs of exploiting, then it is to copy the latest CD that you could easily buy at Wallmart.   

Anyway, I'm impressed with your method of analysis.  You ask good questions and raise some good points.       

Buying a used copy might deprive a copyright holder of a new sale, but I detest the idea of entertainment (movies, music, etc) as a subscription.  If I buy a film, I want to own the film to watch it whenever I want - for no additional charge.  I do not want it to stop working after 5 viewings or 15 days, and I do not want it to stop working because a central authentication server goes offline. 

Part of this is what I think the consumer should expect from artists and studios.  The other is from an archival standpoint.  DVD is a boon for the preservation of films in some form.  What better way to ensure that a film is never lost than to distribute thousands of copies across the world?  Imagine if all those discs self destructed, or relied on a server run by a company that could go bankrupt or decide that operating the server was no longer profitable.

So far the world has resisted the push by studios and distributors to move to that subscription model.  DIVX discs died.  However, quite a bit of online music is still only available in DRM formats.  In the realm of video games, it seems that most players have surrendered to DRM.

My take on it is that the best way to enforce your (the consumer's) will upon the companies is not to buy these stupid DRM-restricted versions, and do not use infringing copies of the movie/music/software either.  Believe me, their need to make money will break before your need to play the game would.  Or, at least, it should.

Copyright infringement is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.  It is a violation of the offer that society extends to artists and those who make creative works.

 :cheers:

DRM restrictions are insane. Hopefully the poor sales in the PC game industry will cause the to rethink their current actions. Saying that the games I keep replaying are dungeon keeper and Doom both the games are very old but very enjoyable. If they just stopped working as the server proving they where original copies went down I would be most upset. Saying that both of the games are 2nd or 3rd copies as I keep having to burn new copies changing files where needed for compatibility with the lastest windows version.

I agree it is copyright infringement nothing more. Remember folks its good to be bad.

I disagree with this, as copyright provides a reason for the creation of artistic works.  If a company does not have a chance to profit by creating a game, then why in the world should they spend years and millions of dollars developing a game.  The same goes for movies and music.

Exactly.


A rare point of disagreement with you here, though it's probably just an issue of semantics.  There's a reason it's called intellectual "property."  The offer that society extended to the artists is the exclusive right to sell copies of their original works; that's a legal property right.  There's also a moral property right to reap the fruits of your own labor.  Taking someone's property without permission/compensation is stealing.  

When some guy copies one of your reviews and posts it on his blog as if it was his own, you wouldn't be out of line to say he "stole" your work.  I would consider it calling a spade a spade, in fact.  

I agree copyright is worth having but its still not stealing.

The good to be bad part came from dungeon keeper if you ever played that. (Shame DK3 was cut)

I would argue that it is technically not stealing, though I agree using stealing for a shorthand version works.  If someone steals my car, I no longer have a car to get to work or go to the grocery store.  If I make a game and they make an infringing copy, I am potentially out the revenue I would have earned if they bought the game but I still have the game to sell.

Copyright infringement is wrong, but it is has some differences that make it a separate issue than stealing.

PC games, yeah.  It's gotten rather ridiculous.  Personally, as one example, Half-Life 2 REQUIRED online activation before it would work.  I was unwilling to buy the game (despite owning the first and loving it and its multiplayer mods) until some hacker out there got a workaround to the online activation.  Once they did, I bought it.  I'd say I'm rather exceptional in this regard though - and that CD keys and online activation probably does reduce some amount of casual piracy.  Probably not a lot though.

Pirates quickly get round anything like that. The DRM games have been heavily pirated. The only harm DRM and CD keys do is damage the 2nd hand market.

Lets take spore as an example. Pirates managed to get a copy and hack it before the official release day. So not only did the pirates get a better version of the game they also got it before legit customers.

 What about pirating in Iran?
There anything western is illegal, and the only way a bored Iranian can get ahold of Shakiras newest CD is through the black market.

What do we all say in this scenerio?

That people have to buy Western music CDs on the black market has nothing to do with copyright.  Also, Iran is not signed to the Berne Convention, which is an international agreement covering copyrights. 

As I thought, it's sematics.  "Stealing" is not a legal term--you can't be charged with stealing.  "Larceny" is a legal term, and it requires that the victim be deprived of the property.  Copyright infringement (and other forms of lifting intellectual property) can't meet this definition.  The effect on the the victim is less serious.

But looking at it from the point of the perpetrator, it's the same class of activity.  He's taking something that belongs to another person without a legal right or justification.  It's the same sort of selfish act that shows an unwillingness to delay gratification or discipline our own desires.  It's morally weak.

The reason I prefer to call it "stealing" is because society is far too tolerant of this type of selfish activity, and people need a reminder that it actually is something that's wrong.  The fact that so many people think it's perfectly OK makes me worry about both our national character and our critical thinking skills.  "Infringement," while precise, is an emotionally weak term that's far too easy to wink at or rationalize.     

But I do admit that this is as much a personal pet peeve of mine as anything.   :wink:

It's a much different question.  If you value free expression as a basic human right, as most of us here do, then Iranian censorship laws are illegitimate.  But you can smuggle in legitimate copies of Shakira CDs, right?  Not really related to piracy.

Some of the logic doesn't follow:
It's legal to buy a used copy, even though the artist doesn't benefit. Let's say in most cases new copies are available, yet buying used is chosen because the buyer doesn't value the disc at $20.00. However it's frowned upon if someone burns a copy for their own collection?

Burning shouldn't be equated with piracy; the person isn't selling copies on the black market.

I'm sorry to say this, but it's really the fault of the owner if they don't sell a product that can actively prevent people from making copies.
You've got to be responsible for your own property. Just like you don't leave your doors and windows unlocked!

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/Lolz/pic/stupid_riaa.jpg)

-Jimmybob

This is the original buyer's right - that of first sale.  Would it be fair to you if a car maker could say that you cannot sell a car that they made?  That only they can sell their cars?  Once you buy something you own it, and you should be able to sell it if you want.  What you are selling is a copy that the creator made.  They already benefited from the first sale.  The creator's rights are preserved, and so are yours.


This is a hollow argument.  You are saying that because you do not want to pay the price that someone establishes for their product then what you are doing is OK.  And you are just providing arguments for DRM, which is awful.  DRM interferes with the rights of people who legitimately purchase movies, music, and games.  People with the attitude of "if you don't want me to steal it, then protect it" are partially to blame.

Andrew answered Nukie more concisely (as usual  :tongueout:) while I was typing my response, but I'll add my two cents as well.


Not 100% clear on the scenario you're proposing.  Are you saying you see no difference between reselling a used copy of a CD you bought but no longer want, and giving away a free copy to someone else while still keeping the original CD?

In the first case, only one person has a copy of the CD, and both have paid for it.  In the second, two people have a copy of the CD, and only one has paid for it.      

If the label only prints 100 CDs, and everyone follows the rules, 100 copies are sold and only 100 CDs will be in circulation at any time.  There's a market for 100 CDs and everyone who wants one has one.  

If everyone who bought one of the original 100 CDs makes a copy and gives it to a friend for free while keeping a copy for themselves, then 200 CDs are in circulation, but only 100 have been bought.  There's now a potential market for 200 CDs.  Some of the people who got a free copy would have bought a used copy, some wouldn't have bought any copy, but some would have purchased a full priced copy.    

Back when people made individual copies of records on blank tapes, it was not a big deal.  But digital distribution all over the world at the click of a button makes it a big deal.  

Taken to the extreme, only one person ever has to buy a CD.  He can then rip it to mp3s and upload it to a file-sharing service where the entire world can enjoy it.  This doesn't happen only because some good-hearted people want to be sure the artist/producer gets their fair share, or because some people aren't technologically proficient enough to figure out how to use file-sharing.  

I don't think its any coincidence that CD sales dropped 30% in the 3 years after Napster went online.    


Semantics.  Makes no difference if you sell or give away an illegal copy.  If you shoplift a candy bar and give it away to your girlfriend, you can't say you're not guilty of a crime because you didn't profit.  


Can't blame the victim.  I imagine if you leave your door unlocked one night and you're robbed, you won't say, "good one, burglar, you got me!  You earned that stereo system!  Well done!"

  

 :thumbup:

That image caught me by surprise.

As a university student I have an external hard drive which I rip my films onto, as it saves having the DVD here in halls.

I do find it sickerning that anyone can support DRM. I am buying a copy of a film not renting the damn thing. Will they try what they have done with games requiring online activations for the DVD copy to even work? Earth 2160 required me to phone up to get the game to work as the damn thing did not detect my internet connection. The main serious issue of anti piracy protection is the damage to the 2nd hand market and the fact servers and companies will not always be around. This means one day your copy of X will just stop working.

Anyway I am off to watch return of the killer tomatoes. It took 4 evening to watch through attack of the killer tomatoes. I am holding onto a faint hope that the sequel has managed to become better than the original.

Okay, I was wrong. :teddyr:

But I dunno if I can just blame pirates for consumers right of resale being taken away. Could buyers who hoard and sell a used product be blamed too?

I don't know the figures here, but is the media-market totally moving away from the DVD, to something with a shelf-life? Or are we going to stay at both, and those who pay for temporary, just pay less?




Either the firm has a small demographic, or they are hoarding (if thats the correct term).
But hoarding would only hurt such a firm these days; it would benefit the pirates.
If the firm has such a small demographic it might be too costly to print, or they really don't have to worry about pirating.

You know if you burn you're own copy you can delete all those piracy warning in custom setup ... oh the irony. Or so I've heard.

Well when you rip it off the DVD you can only take the movie files if you wish so no anti piracy ad.

100 was just a random number.  Actually, there's X copies of the CD.  No matter how many copies they print, they lose some potential sales to pirating.

I wish I could do this with some of my own DVDs.  Seems like too much work, though.

The problem I have is not with the anti-piracy ad, per se, but with the fact that the any message is unskippable.  Those Rhino MST3K DVDs always have an unskippable copyright notice, Rhino logo, then the MST3k opening with the doors.  And the crappily manufactured discs alway make my DVD player reset at some time.  Then I have to sit through a minute or so of unskippable content before I can go back to scene select and resume where I left off.  It's annoying and pointless. 

Its well worth doing. You also have a back up of your choice movies which could be lost in a freak accident or the wear and tear finally take its toll. The back up allows you to burn a replacement disc if that ever happens.

Now depending on the software you use, you could rip from dvds while surfing the web. Its well worth doing to any long menu selection films (jeepers creepers comes to mind) as well as any extra ordinary long anti pirate ads.

I have been enjoying MST3K on youtube its a shame they never brought out series box sets as I would have snapped them up. Is it just me or does most of the single MST3K DVDs seem to have a few episodes missing from each series. Maybe it was just the stocker I was looking at but it would be annoying if I was unable to enjoy them all. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sHs-Dg8lh4w

If you aim for 1TB you should have plenty of room. Many students use this now as it saves having to transport a DVD collection or CD collection. I plan to put all my DVD collection here with me now onto it and when I travel home again I can take the DVD's back.

I have no problem buying a legitimate copy of a movie ... HOWEVER if a movie is OOP and commanding $75, $100 or more dollars for a used copy. I have no problem getting a bootleg or burnt copy.

If the film maker/studio doesn't want folks making copies then make affordable legal ones.

I'm not even going to get into the recording of cassettes or VHS tapes ... if I've said it once I've said it a 1000 times, where was the the whining by the industry on the recording of cassettes and VHS tapes? The cows out of the barn if they had a problem with copies they should have complained then and not wait until now. You nip it in the bud otherwise don't be surprised when you're neglect of a problem becomes commonplace. The goes for everything in life.

I would suggest charity shops but having volunteered in a few I feel I better mention they will throw away what they think wont sell. Shockingly they let a lot of crap books through but any DVD/videos with stupid titles will normally be chucked to make way for more recent popular films that get donated in large amounts.

Go luck with that around here, recently I donated over 300 DVD's to the local library with the note if you don't need them return them to me, which is a option on the donation form. None were returned and ZERO ended up on the shelf at the library ... were did they go? Anything that was returned I was going to donate to the local thrift store.

Beside I don't think I'm going to find a copy of "The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover" at the the local thrift store and a R1 is going for around $80.00.

Well from my experience they are moved round to other libraries or charity shops well some of them, others become tombed in a small room which gets a short every few months when the selves start to run low.

Nope they ended up in someones (Library Employee's) personal collection as I found out later and they weren't fired ... so no more donations from me, books, movies, money or otherwise. I live in a small town, there isn't much that happens here that you don't hear about and the local library had at last count less than 100 DVD's in their collection, but I bet the employee's have a great collection.

Sounds that way. Thats awful.  :hatred:

I only watch the MST3ks on Youtube that aren't released. But I wish they'd release them all, the picture is so compressed that it's hard to see everything, and some of the riffing is visual :( .

I also watched "The Burning Hell" on youtube, I could have paid $30.00 to some wacko fundie splinter-sect. But that would defeat the purpose of laughing at their cheesey propaganda. Though it was sort of painful to watch in some parts.

MST3K I can not get hold of easily on DVD and no chance to watch it on TV. (UK)

Well worth breaking copyright to enjoy some insanity from nutters without funding them.