Posted by Invid Fan on 07/16/06 00:01

In article <1152986278.376139.303380@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
unglued <dragonseed@spray.se> wrote:

> Invid Fan wrote:

> > I thought he was saying that if nobody own a particular film, nobody
> > will have an interest in keeping a set of original prints or restoring
> > damaged ones. That's how films get lost.
>
> I don't understand that, producing a superior product that can command
> relatively
> high profits is always a going proposition on condition that the
> enhanced version is not ripped off but then we're talking about pirate
> copies.
>
I'm going to use a non-film example here. The BBC did not keep master
versions of any of their pre-1970's tv series. Due to union and
copyright rules they could only air an episode twice, after which it
was sold for international viewing and forgotten. Those syndicated film
prints of the episodes were often destroyed once they were no longer
needed: after all, the BBC had more copies, right? By the time anyone
really noticed over 100 episodes of Doctor Who, plus entire runs of
other series, no longer existed in any form.

My point being, if no one owns a show there's a good chance the
original masters won't be preserved. Everyone will assume someone else
is doing it, so not spend the money to preserve or restore what they
have.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

[Back to original message]