Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

From the Hollywood Reporter June, 1999 www.Hollywoodreporter.com

MPAA Patrols Black Market For 35mm Prints

"I cannot tell you that there is not a 35mm film out there that is not subject to the First Sale Doctrine," said Ken Jacobsen, vp and director of the MPAA's U.S. anti-piracy operations. Thousands of other prints came onto the black market a few years ago when film exchange company National Film Service went out of business.

National Film Service had a service depot outside Los Angeles called Gilboy and when the company went out of business, Gilboy abandoned its warehouse -- and thousands of 35mm prints.

Gilboy officials allegedly wrote a letter to the warehouse's landlord saying that he could do whatever he wanted with the truckload of prints that had been left behind. The landlord subsequently sold the prints to collectors, who in turn are selling them to other collectors. The single biggest seller of these prints, however, appears to be SabuCat Prods., which in a recent full-page ad offered to sell 35mm prints of dozens of recent films including "Air Force One" for $600, "The Avengers" for $600, "Boogie Nights" for $650, "Con Air" for $600, "Jackie Brown" for $650, "101 Dalmatians" for $600 and "Starship Troopers" for $750.

"We don't deal in stolen prints," said an official at SabuCat Prods. "All of our prints have been acquired from sources such as Gilboy and other now-defunct film depots. The MPAA's Jacobsen said that they are not investigating SabuCat Productions as they have done nothing illegal "If a company or individual can prove that they aquired a print legally then no laws have been broken, and as long as they only sell the original copy and not produce duplicates for sale then it is perfectly legal to sell the print according to the first sale doctrine. "


[This message has been edited by NSCInemas (edited March 22, 2008).]

good lord, I thought this thread was about fundraising!

Everyone here should go get a beer and chill out!

The only reason I have even said anything is that according to the article I posted on the 1st page from DVDTalk.com some films have been restored due to privater collectors who legitametly owned prints turning over missing footage, If someone who inherited a 35mm print of a classic read what you said and got scared and destroyed the print then a classic could be lost to us forever. There are unknown consequences to things that we post in a public forum. I think we should be responsible and not make blanket statements without making sure that they are 100% true.

Exerpts from "Stealing the show" http://www.jamesmonaco.com/PiracyJM.html

"A recent MPAA survey of Classic Film Collector, The Big Reel, Film Collector's World, and other journals of the subculture counted advertisements for more than $60 million worth of films, which may make collecting almost as big as the bootleg export market. Very few of these cinephiles would bother with the often poor quality product available from bootleggers and from other collectors if they could buy mint-condition prints from the studios themselves. Of course, in many cases, the studios no longer own prints, much less negatives, of some of their most famous films. If they wanted to preserve their old films, they would have to go to the collectors to obtain prints. "

"In 1974 and 1975, raids were staged on groups of alleged pirates, including a rental service (Budget Films), a memorabilia retail store (Woodrow Wise), and a freelance producer (Ray Atherton). Also included in this particular group was actor Roddy McDowall, whose collection was raided by the FBI in December 1974.

It was not a particularly smart move. McDowall had apparently been chosen as a target in order to give warning to film collectors that they would also be subject to prosecution. The FBI search team seized more than five hundred copies of films and television shows, including a number of films—Lassie Come Home, My Friend Flicka, Planet of the Apes—which McDowall had appeared. The film collectors' magazines jumped on this apparent case of harassment, as did the general media. The action against McDowall seemed to imply that an actor might be criminally charged with possessing copies of his own work. The charges against McDowall were later dropped. McDowall's collection was a minor nexus of the so-called Bel Air circuit. For years, people in the industry had been casually screening the latest films in expensive private screening rooms."

IF you can agree 99% of films are illegal than i can agree that there are a very small amount of prints legal.Mostly people who worked on the film have copies.If you have recieved a copy legally it is then legal to resell it..1st doctrine comes into play as long as the print was legal in the first place..

I do agree that 99% of 35mm release prints in private hands are not obtained legally, and that having posession of those prints are illegal.

I have been following this thread and decided to finally open my mouth and make my first post. I have been lurking for a while and feel this site is an invaluable resource. I do own my own theatre, actually I own 7 of them. I think Slapintheface owes everyone here an apology for the condescending and rude posts he made in this thread.

ie: NOT SURE WHY YOU DONT GET IT....
never on this site have there been a person that has so much to say that knows so little....I HOPE TO GOD YOU DO NOT HAVE A THEATER! So go play in a sandbox...........I will just laugh ........Those who dont own theaters telling us we are wrong..You did say HARVARD ????? just wanted to see how long this ignorance could go on.

I just want to make it clear that he does not speak for all theater owners and he certainly do not speak for me. He should be embarrased and ashamed, not only that he was 100% wrong but that anyone could think they are better than anyone else simply because they own your own movie theater that is simply pathetic. It was very clear early on that he was wrong but he insulted not only 2 other members, but a studio executive here. The one thing that I hate about the world wide web is that you can never know if people post truthful information that they have actual knowledge of, and I believe that it is right to make sure that we don't just post things that we think are true without knowing for sure, or doing some research. Anyways, Thank you for providing this forum I rather enjoy almost everyones contributions and I really hope that slapintheface does the right thing and apologizes to everyone here for HIS ignorance. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by thebigK (edited March 22, 2008).]

700 posts and i try to make sure my info is correct ....So when i have 2 now 3 people telling me and other theater owners who posted the same info on this topic we are wrong it does get me crazy.

That being said i never got Rude like the other 2 ..Sarcastic yes ...rude no ..

And to the new guy post #1 ....You have been lurking and this is the best topic you good post on ...Tells me alot.......

that you could post on..tells me a lot........Big k...

I did call 3 other theaters today on this topic....2 agreed that it is 99.999999 % unlikley that anyone than a studio boss or producer could have a print that is legal.
1 theater had no clue on the subject..


I dont mind checking things out...I love this site for the fun of it....Thats why it was great to meet at SHOWEST so many from this site...

from the TOS of these forums;

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this site to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

And in case you forgot you posted this:
IF you can agree 99% of films are illegal than i can agree that there are a very small amount of prints legal.Mostly people who worked on the film have copies.If you have recieved a copy legally it is then legal to resell it..1st doctrine comes into play as long as the print was legal in the first place..

I was at showest as well slapintheface it's too bad we did not have the opportunity to meet.

[This message has been edited by thebigK (edited March 22, 2008).]

[This message has been edited by thebigK (edited March 22, 2008).]

I know what i posted........

Now lets see what happens if they say(TO THE FILM CO) they want to play that RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK PRINT....OR ANIMAL HOUSE....

That was the topic......

I bet i can tell you what they will say!

Hey Big K... Why don't you lay off the guy. It was a misunderstanding on a convoluted issue and we both got kind of huffy about it. We were able to come to what I think is a fair and accurate compromise and I think in a way we were both right. I am pretty sure that anyone showing up with a print of raiders, or animal house got it illegally. As Slap said very few prints are legitimate but 99.9999999% are probably ill gotten. It is not illegal in itself to own a print but there are very few situations where someone could get one that is legal and the number of stolen/misplaced prints far far outweighs the legal ones. I, nor my freind took anything that was said personally, and I think we all got a little hot under the collar and blew this thing way out of proportion. I am confident that Slap in an intelligent, business savy, and honest theatre owner who has a tremendous love for this business and is willing to take his time to come one here and answer questions and share some of his emense knowledge and experience. I truly have no hard feelings or grudge against him and think he was a very worthy opponent. If NATO had a debate team to win better terms for theatres I am sure that him and I would make a great team!

This does not need to go any further bigK I feel the issue was settled amicably and we all learned a little.

It is a little funny though someone choosing to register and make thier first post on this thread... maybe someone doesnt have the courage to say what they want under thier own screen name?