Video or DVD?

"Bootleggers are slime."

Well, yeah...except that in many, many cases they're the only possible sources one can turn to in order to keep otherwise-forgotten films alive, when the studios evidently don't care enough anymore, or when there's some behind-the-scenes shenanigans going on to hold up a release (witness Gance's "Napoleon")...

...and except (in admittedly extreme cases) when they're the only protection you have against the studios willfully supressing something that, for their own reasons, they don't want you to see.

(I'm by no means defending the high prices that bandits may put on something that they just run off in their basements, by the way. But not all of them are like that.)

Or are you speaking from the traditional "ethical" point of view, that, by buying things from the pirates we're depriving the real artists of their rightful profits?

All true and good...except that it isn't our fault that the studios haven't released these things, thereby depriving themselves of those profits.

It's fine for them to deprive us of the chance to see them, but it's evil if we take advantage of some other opportunities? We should all just behave ourselves and let the studios dictate what we're able to see?

One argument that always pops up there, of course, is that, if enough people buy from the pirates then the studios will be discouraged about releasing it themselves.

Bull.

At no point in time, at no conceivable instance, is it possible for as many people to frequent bootleggers as would hurt to any extent a studio's releases. Quite the contrary: if I were head of a studio, I'd hire someone JUST to keep an eye on what's most popularly being bootlegged, because I'd consider it a shoo-in for a major release.

As far as the artists getting their just rewards, I don't see Universal shedding any tears over having replaced the original source music in the first year of "The Equalizer" rather than coming to terms. So it's fine for the studio to deprive those artists of their income, just so long as we don't do it? (I'm not saying they don't have a LEGAL right to do it, but we're not arguing legalities here, we're arguing ETHICS.)

And, before you shed too many tears, bear in mind that really old films are now owned outright by the studios. Any royalties and residuals have long ago been paid off and expired. Every artist ever involved with that film, hell, everyone employed by the studio back then, is gone now. All the studio has done has renewed the copyright over the years and stored the elements. Don't get me wrong; bless them for that! But they're the ones sitting on these little potential goldmines but not taking advantage of them, it's not our fault! (And that's why the studios' charging $20 a pop for their various "archive" collections is blatantly unfair.)

But, just to make sure that someone is absolutely, self-righteously innocent and sincere about hating bootleggers and considering them evil, here are the rules they have to follow:

NEVER record anything off of tv, because that would be depriving the artists of their income from eventual dvd sales.

Never lend or share or swap shows (or music or whatever) with friends. Talk up some film all you like with someone...just make sure that they have to go out and buy it for themselves! Hell, don't even invite anyone over to watch something with you. That could be depriving a studio of a sale.

Never check out a studio film from a library or something; nobody's making any profits then, and the price the library paid has probably long ago been exceeded. (Video rental places pay something between 5 and 10 times as much for rental copies as for sale ones...but 10 rentals isn't all that much.)

If you tire of a film, or upgrade from tape to dvd, or dvd to blu, just smash up and throw away your old copy. Whatever you do, don't resell it to a used store or offer it on ebay or something. After all, not a nickel of the money you'll make back would be going into the right pockets.

Most importantly...never, EVER come into some online forum on here or Amazon or wherever and say a single negative thing about some film, ANY film (or any other media). After all, someone may well have wandered onto that Amazon page solely for the sake of purchasing the film, thereby giving those artists that much more of a well-deserved income, and, having seen your scathing review, have thought twice about it. NOW who's depriving people of their royalties?

Now, if you agree with everything I've just said, if you're willing to hold to all those terms, THEN we can start having an ethical discussion about the evils of bootleggers.

(For the record, no, I don't at all advocate buying boots when the studios actually have released something commercially, without alteration. But why on earth is there such a groundswell of sympathy in favor of these multi-million dollar corporations who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about us? We're just dollars and cents to them! I'm reminded of the time a few years back when Warners was nice enough to send out a couple of spokesmen to talk about their forthcoming releases to some online review site, and someone had the NERVE to ask the wrong question, or something. Mind you, I'm not advocating rudeness or anything, but I don't think he was being rude, he was just treading somewhere that they didn't want to go...and everyone JUMPED on him afterwards, because Warners had been so wonderful by sending these guys out. WHAT??? It's their JOB to go out, they're publicizing their company, they're trying to solicit SALES, they're not doing it as some special FAVOR! We're the ones putting food on THEIR tables, why have we gotten in the habit of acting subservient to THEM? Who's doing the favor to who?)

And bear in mind if you love old films that, with every passing year, the demographic that is interested in them is shrinking. When home video first came out the number of people who had actually seen 1926's "Scarlet Letter" was already probably in the few hundreds, and you could add several thousand people who were born since then who'd be interested in seeing it. By the time take-home vhs had become available those numbers had shrunk considerably. By the time dvd's came along there was most likely no one left who'd originally seen the film, and even the fans of silent films had shrunk. It shrinks EVERY YEAR. The longer the studios hold off releasing some old film, the more likely it is that it will never be released, at least not under the system as we know it, because the market just keeps on shrinking.

So, unless you're willing to wait until the "next big thing" in the way things operate (most likely downloads...but don't hold your breath, for reasons I won't get into here; at any rate, even if downloads took off tomorrow, you can kiss your high resolution and commentaries and extras and restorations and everything else goodbye), be prepared for the day, coming VERY soon, when you'll just have to admit that some long-hoped for film you've been waiting for forever is quite simply NEVER going to be released...and you'll have to resort to a bootlegger. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. You're too ethical for that, and now, thanks to your crusade against them, they're all out of business.

HOORAY! You've triumphed over them! Now NO ONE will ever be able to see that film again!

Nice work.