|
Post by JOHN SMITH on Jul 29, 2008 19:20:00 GMT
Hi
Whilst recons in any shape or form are welcome. It makes me wonder just how long the bbc will tolerate them, especially if they recieve complaints about them.
Without naming names, there is one team that does them on video free of charge, and purports to ship worldwide (says so on their website), but the seeming catch is that not only does the person who want them have to provide the blank video, (which is fair enough), they also need to provide postage stamps to cover the cost of return postage (which again is fair enough). However, the killer, is that the only places the video recons can be obtained from is either from UK, USA, Australia or Canada. So seemingly, if someone lives 'abroad' of those (with possibly the exception of NZ), they are up the creek without a paddle, because postage from any of the above can only be done in the postage currency of the above. Where I live, it's not possible to get Australian, UK, USA or Canadian postage stamps, therefore I can not send them with a blank video and in the end recieve (at least by legal means) recons.
If people don't want to torrent, and inevitably there are many who won't, and thus complain about this discrepancy or other discrepancies from other recon teams (if they exist) to the bbc, how long will recons remain ??
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jul 29, 2008 21:26:27 GMT
Why would people complain to the BBC??? Richard
|
|
|
Post by Ron Bowes on Jul 29, 2008 23:37:34 GMT
If the BBC does not have a story to sell and someone is offering a reconstruction, which is NO WAY the original product, at no profit, then I don't see how there is an issue. How could the BBC press for lost income on something they don't have.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Dering on Jul 29, 2008 23:52:17 GMT
However, the killer, is that the only places the video recons can be obtained from is either from UK, USA, Australia or Canada. So seemingly, if someone lives 'abroad' of those (with possibly the exception of NZ), they are up the creek without a paddle, because postage from any of the above can only be done in the postage currency of the above. Where I live, it's not possible to get Australian, UK, USA or Canadian postage stamps, therefore I can not send them with a blank video and in the end recieve (at least by legal means) recons. Don't they have Universal Reply Coupons in your country?
|
|
|
Post by Phillip Culley on Jul 30, 2008 0:15:59 GMT
If the BBC does not have a story to sell and someone is offering a reconstruction, which is NO WAY the original product, at no profit, then I don't see how there is an issue. How could the BBC press for lost income on something they don't have. There could be an argument that were the reconstruction offered in a high-quality format then it would be competing with the DVDs (for the episodes on Lost in Time), as well as the soundtrack which they have released. The main reason Loose Cannon have got away with what is effectively a illegal copyright-breaching product is that they have gone out of their way to not compete with the BBC. Included episodes are not the remastered ones from LiT, the soundtracks are obtained from the people who recorded them (or whoever has the tapes now), and the telesnaps are sourced from the negatives - all of which are cleaned up by members of Loose Cannon. On the flip side, I've seen reconstructions up on torrent sites which use episodes from LiT, as well as the narrated audios direct from the BBC CD - it's things like this which threaten the recons as a whole. After all, were the BBC to crack down on recons which don't care about playing ball with them, then I doubt they will ignore LC despite their attempts to not compete.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Gregg on Jul 30, 2008 8:28:30 GMT
yeh i like the recons. first got into em 10 or more years ago when I obtained 1st Gen copys from the JV ones and others (blimey ive even forgottem thier name) They were great. the audio was acseptible. (i even prefer some not all but some of the recon audio as it's not got too much NR on it like the ones that Mark works on. not having a go at Mark but some of his stuff is "too clean") I thought I'd get me some recons from torrent sites in the last 5 years., and ALL bar one look like 8th generation tapes copied with the lo fi ST!!! and then encoded in the worst /codec/setting imagiamble.. so I really don't think the beeb have ANYTHING to "worry about" on that regard. and i've seen some of the newer recons people are making on youtube, with photographs with moving mouth's eyes etc. although it looks good (for about 10 seconds) I coudent imagine anything as bad as watching a whole epp like that. The 1st recon i saw was at some Dr Who convention about 20-25 years ago. and yep It was on slides!! with the sound set up to change the slides at a (non audible on the left track) pulse. this was before the Reconers used the same photo mulitple times etc. so we saw all 60 odd "telesnaps" as taken matched as best as poss to the audio.. and they were still entertaining.. in fact it's how i now "remember"some storys, rather than the flashy gimiky showbuisness of later recons (again i still think they are good too)
I was told from Bruce (forgot his last name, created some cool recons down under) that as long as they were trading this stuff as VHS they had been told from someone within the BBC they they diddn't mind. the Home recorded DVD had started to emerge by the mid to late 90's and a lot of us wanted Bruce, JV, COI, etc to put thier efforts straight to DVD from the software they were using to make em etc. but they held out and wouldent make DVD's. which was a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Bowes on Jul 30, 2008 16:58:34 GMT
@ pculley - there is no competition - only true Who fans would bother with the relatively "hard work" of watching recons, and if the BBC released it's own recons to truly compete, the fans would snatch their arms off to buy it. Truth be told, the Beeb itself has little interest in old Doctor Who, otherwise it would make more recons like the"Invasion". They don't see it as a money spinner, and if it isn't a money spinner why should they be concerned about recons?
|
|
|
Post by Phillip Culley on Jul 30, 2008 19:27:11 GMT
It doesn't matter whether the BBC have any intention to make more recons, reconstructions infringe on copyright, and as the members of Loose Cannon will happily tell you, they walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do. The fact they still employ what could be perceived as archaic practices such as forcing people to obtain them on VHS rather than DVD and direct download shows as they're aware anything more could have them receiving a cease and desist. After all, if the BBC didn't care about the recons, why aren't Loose Cannon relaxing their rules?
From the BBC's perspective, someone might get the recon for free instead of buying the official CD of the story, thus meaning Loose Cannon are directly responsible for that loss of sale (indeed I've seen people on various places who haven't forked out for the CD as they can get it for effectively free). At least Loose Cannon make the effort to give a product that doesn't compete with the BBC, by having raw narrationless soundtracks, as well as releasing on a lower-quality media format.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Dunne on Aug 5, 2008 9:38:36 GMT
Don't they have Universal Reply Coupons in your country? Only if it's a Universal Postal Union member and then only for the last century or so. So not if speople is from Andorra, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, the Palestinian Authority, Somaliland, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Taiwan or Western Sahara. Or his own personal non-UPU member country. Or further afield in space or time.
|
|
Tom Tellam
Member
I\'m Walking Backwards to Xmas...
Posts: 34
|
Post by Tom Tellam on Aug 5, 2008 13:12:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by retro on Aug 16, 2008 21:51:28 GMT
The issue for the BBC is indeed one of copyright. Regardless of whether it loses them sales or not, or indeed whether the 'bootlegger' is making a profit, the copyright remains with the BBC so they have a right to put their foot down. The copyright for archive photographs, sound and video all belongs to them.
Getting a reconstruction done by someone like Cosgrove Hall is extremely expensive. Of course the BBC won't see it as profitable, because it probably isn't going to be!
As for shipping abroad, if you're talking about shipping outside the EU, then it'll need a customs form, so the sender would HAVE to go to the Post Office. Therefore, why not offer them cash in their currency (something you CAN obtain in your country) to the value of the required postage stamps? You could even pay them via PayPal, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Bowes on Aug 16, 2008 22:40:04 GMT
The issue for the BBC is indeed one of copyright. Regardless of whether it loses them sales or not, or indeed whether the 'bootlegger' is making a profit, the copyright remains with the BBC so they have a right to put their foot down. The copyright for archive photographs, sound and video all belongs to them. Getting a reconstruction done by someone like Cosgrove Hall is extremely expensive. Of course the BBC won't see it as profitable, because it probably isn't going to be! As for shipping abroad, if you're talking about shipping outside the EU, then it'll need a customs form, so the sender would HAVE to go to the Post Office. Therefore, why not offer them cash in their currency (something you CAN obtain in your country) to the value of the required postage stamps? You could even pay them via PayPal, perhaps. I don't think anyone is disputing the right of BBC to put it's foot down, rather the merits or gains of so doing. If you play music at a party - you infringe copyright, but don't seriously expect to be prosecuted for playing music without a licence, if you sell a cd or dvd second hand - you infringe copyright, if you lend a dvd to someone, you infringe copyright etc., etc., etc., I would put recons in the same arena. they don't affect BBC sales, because the BBC aren't selling them, but IF they did, fans would buy the BBC versions as opposed to the fan made ones - no conflict IMHO. I would have thought the BBC would have been far more concerned with the piracy of their released DVDs to be frank.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Oct 20, 2011 8:06:52 GMT
Why pay so much to make cartoons anyway? The recons are about the closest thing to the originals that we will ever have. I have wondered why the BBC has not bought out Loose Cannon's work and issued all those recons themselves. $$$ Because the 2|entertain DVDs sell to a mainstream market and the flak they would get for releasing DVDs that were effectively slideshow presentations would make it impossible. Even at their best, the recons are not accessible to a general audience (in terms of they would sit through a 2.5 hour animation but wouldn't sit through a 2.5 hour slide show).
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Oct 20, 2011 15:02:57 GMT
Why pay so much to make cartoons anyway? The recons are about the closest thing to the originals that we will ever have. I have wondered why the BBC has not bought out Loose Cannon's work and issued all those recons themselves. $$$ Because the 2|entertain DVDs sell to a mainstream market and the flak they would get for releasing DVDs that were effectively slideshow presentations would make it impossible. Even at their best, the recons are not accessible to a general audience (in terms of they would sit through a 2.5 hour animation but wouldn't sit through a 2.5 hour slide show). Exactly -- I can't stand to watch more than a few minutes of a recon before I get bored. I'd much rather just listen to the audio versions. It takes a certain kind of personality to be interested in those, and they certainly would not appeal to a more general audience... IMO, Recons are worse than watching Clutch Cargo!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Oct 20, 2011 19:01:11 GMT
Why pay so much to make cartoons anyway? The recons are about the closest thing to the originals that we will ever have. I have wondered why the BBC has not bought out Loose Cannon's work and issued all those recons themselves. $$$ I believe that a lot of the images are composites using images from sources that are not BBC copyright and those would have to be cleared, which would be a) costly, b) time-consuming and c) very likely impossible.
|
|