ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Feb 25 14 2:19 AM
I think the "best available print" issue is key when we're discussing movies. With printed material, such as the authors mentioned, the content can be passed down in its entirety with no loss of quality. The quality is in the writing. Sure, there will be cheap paperbacks published but there will also be superior deluxe editions printed. This has already been proven true as cheap paperbacks and deluxe leather editions with ribbed spines and marbled endpapers co-exist for authors such as Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, Twain, Shakespeare, etc. The consumer only has to decide which edition suits their fancy and pocketbook.
I believe that the points about inferior picture quality regarding films has also already been proven. There are very few public domain movies that have gotten a major restoration. Restorations and extras cost money whereas just grabbing the first beat-up 16mm print costs next-to-nothing. Alpha Video is a good example of a company that exits almost entirely off of public domain titles and they don't do any work on these releases to ensure the best picture and sound quality. Consequently, the image quality from release to release varies widely.
If Universal (or any company) is allowed to retain copyright on a movie they have a commercial incentive to protect their property. In this case, the property is literally the best film elements in their possession. Only financial considerations motivate the work needed on these films. And if someone did spend a lot of money on a restoration, since the film is in public domain, there is nothing to protect their work from another company copying their better edition and offering it themselves. Knowing this, a company would have to be nuts to invest heavily in film restoration when anyone could steal it with impunity.
Share This