MoC Facebook & Twitter

[swo17]

LOVEFILM buy our editions for normal price and then rent them out infinitely. No rental money comes back to us, licensor, or filmmakers. That's why they make millions and we struggle to restore silent films. Plus no renter gets to see our booklets. We don't support rental companies for this reason, and we've stopped selling them our editions from this month. We've nothing against libraries, of course. They don't make millions off the back of others' hard work.

[starmanof51]

Ugh. The majority (far from all, but a distinct majority nonetheless) of MOC releases are things I've never seen before. Is the suggestion that I should just blind buy the rest and hope for the best? I'm lucky enough to live reasonably close to a US rental store that imports MOCs for rent, and on occasion sale. This give me a chance to rent what piques my interest and find out what I like before deciding if I actually want to have something in my collection. I used to blind buy a fair amount in the heyday of DVD, but between a bewildering pile of kevyip and the increased access to streaming titles, I've virtually eradicated the blind buy from my playbook. I understand the emotion behind that tweet/facebook posting or whatever it was, but if the idea is to cause sales to go up, this seems doomed to backfire. If the idea is to take one's toys and go home, then smashing success.

In my personal world this only works (more money directly in MOCs hands) if they replace with another distribution method (the critierion hulu approach?).

[knives]

Yeah, I agree in that I find MOC's line of logic beguiling. Shouldn't they try to reform rental rules in that case. I'm fortunate enough to live within waking distance of two libraries, but even then I still on occasion have to use the local rental stores to see if I like a movie. On someone I'm familiar with like Shinoda I'll blind buy, but for example had I not rented and enjoyed the Costa films I would never buy them. Rentals play an important part in deciding if I will pick up something and at east a third of what I own come from rentals and that's with me being one of the more willing to blind buy sorts. This seems like something of a mistake.

[MichaelB]

I think MoC's point is that while they're not opposed to rentals per se, they have strong objections to the way that LoveFilm does business. Isn't there a system in place for books whereby libraries can only rent them out a certain number of times before they have to buy another copy?

[knives]

It might depend on library to library and naturally I don't know UK law for this, but the University library has books going back many decades and VHSs from as far back as the '80s. That's not even going into all of the material they have that has stopped being published. If such a rule existed I feel that it is rather short sighted.

[starmanof51]

I think MoC's point is that while they're not opposed to rentals per se, they have strong objections to the way that LoveFilm does business.

That may well be their point, but that's not what comes across in this brief statement. Their description of Lovefilm's model is everyone's rental model, not just Lovefilm. And the decision to treat libraries differently just confuses things even more, unless I accept that these are not business decisions at all.

[ellipsis7]

With regard to library books, I always understood the premium price for hardbacks over paperbacks was that libraries would have to pay the higher amount for the hardback, as their books would be more borrowed, and thus would be subject to greater wear... I think the major studios & distributors that sell rental DVD/BRs to video shops or mail rental (Xtravision/Blockbuster/Lovefilm) also charge a premium price for these, over straight retail copies, sometimes utilising separate release windows to differentiate them... Trouble is for arthouse/independent labels the scale is not large enough to be able to usefully enforce these distinctions... Compare the handful of copies say a Lovefilm would hold of a MoC or BFI title, with the (I would guess) hundreds of copies of a title like THE KING'S SPEECH they would acquire... The injustice is that the handful of copies of an arthouse title will slowly but surely be a steady little earner, far outstripping the price paid for them, whereas the big release title will earn most of its money in the first month of so of its video release, and then most of its rental copies will be taken out of circulation...

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

It's true what their point is though. In an era where the idea of buying DVD's among the masses seems to be waning, companies like LOVEFILM and Netflix grab a few copies of a particular film (on the discount no less) and rent them out an re-rent them and re-rent them and re-rent them garnering them a huge profit and taking away money from smaller businesses or from these labels from people who would possibly blind buy the title.

To me it comes of as a gesture against these new rental tactics by these companies and congratulate them on it. I've met people from different ends of the industry explaining their dislike of these companies for several reasons and it's great to hear about one finally standing against it.

[swo17]

All else being equal though, I would think that rentals have to help sales figures. You often don't realize that you have to own a film until you've seen it, and few people can afford to blind buy everything. Is there not a way that MoC could sell its product to LOVEFILM at a much higher cost per unit? Isn't this why VHS tapes back in the day cost hundreds of dollars, because it was only ever anticipated that rental stores would buy them?

[Perkins Cobb]

I've always wondered about this issue. Milestone, Cinema Guild, and some other US independent labels have lobbied to get Netflix to purchase their DVDs since Netflix stopped supporting catalog titles. I wonder why their reasoning is different from MOC's.

Frankly, I understand where MOC is coming from, because I never buy anything I can rent. Almost all of my purchasing dollars go to imports (including, ironically, MOC), since for the most part I don't have a rental source. But in many ways I'm far from the typical consumer, so who knows.

[JakeB]

Frankly, I understand where MOC is coming from, because I never buy anything I can rent. Almost all of my purchasing dollars go to imports...

Same here! Although I do occasionally buy BFI and MOC films for the booklets. I'd love to boycott LOVEFiLM because I completely agree with MOC's reasons, but there's just too much on there that I want to watch but don't want to fork out for, eg.currently on my high priority list is http://www.lovefilm.com/film/Joseph-Cam ... yth/55922/ which I'm sure is really interesting, but will I watch it more than once? It's also really handy for Opera blu's and DVDs, which are so overpriced to buy, hardly ever have much rewatch value or have anything in the way of extras.

I'm quite happy to cut down on imports from now on and buy all the Masters Of Cinema titles I fancy the look of. Roll on 'A Man Vanishes' and 'Touch Of Evil'!

[Calvin]

One thing that puzzles me about Lovefilm is the condition I often receive discs in. Sometimes it looks as if someone had been dissolving it with strong acid.

[MichaelB]

This seems to be the most active thread about the Sony DADC fire, so it's probably the best place to break the news that it appears to have been a professional heist.

But evidence has now emerged suggesting that the well-guarded Sony DADC distribution centre was deliberately targeted by a professional gang, in a carefully planned raid, using the riots as a distraction.

Sources in the security industry disclosed that intruders first arrived wielding specialist cutting equipment and spent up to two hours dismantling a high security fence before breaking in.

It is claimed that they then summoned a fleet of vans and drove inside the premises, which are set back from the main focus of rioting in the area, before beginning to load up stock.

According to one source, security guards on site were effectively overwhelmed and unable to fend off the intruders, knowing that police were already stretched as anarchy gripped the capital.

After loading up with stolen goods, the robbers are then said to have invited other gangs in to continue the looting in an attempt to cover their tracks.

By the time a crowd of youths were seen inside the warehouse helping themselves to stock including games consoles, the original robbers had already left the scene.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

This seems to be the most active thread about the Sony DADC fire, so it's probably the best place to break the news that it appears to have been a professional heist.

But evidence has now emerged suggesting that the well-guarded Sony DADC distribution centre was deliberately targeted by a professional gang, in a carefully planned raid, using the riots as a distraction.

Sources in the security industry disclosed that intruders first arrived wielding specialist cutting equipment and spent up to two hours dismantling a high security fence before breaking in.

It is claimed that they then summoned a fleet of vans and drove inside the premises, which are set back from the main focus of rioting in the area, before beginning to load up stock.

According to one source, security guards on site were effectively overwhelmed and unable to fend off the intruders, knowing that police were already stretched as anarchy gripped the capital.

After loading up with stolen goods, the robbers are then said to have invited other gangs in to continue the looting in an attempt to cover their tracks.

By the time a crowd of youths were seen inside the warehouse helping themselves to stock including games consoles, the original robbers had already left the scene.

So it's all down to Petticoat Lane for those Naruse box sets then.

[domino harvey]

"I got that Naruse. Japanese insight-- one for three, two for five!"

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Two pounteach, tha'sall theyar' nah.Two pound each. Two pound yer Naruse.

[Duncan Hopper]

"A pony for a box of Toni"


Sorry. :-"

[MichaelB]

"F.W. Murnau, Fritz Lang, Arnold Fanck - a ton for a Hun!"

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

A deuce yer Naruse...

[colinr0380]

For some reason you are all reminding me of this advert!

I suppose, whatever else we can say about them, at least these criminals had discriminating taste!

[swo17]

Hmm...what's a Clockwork Orange-era Kubrick doing in MoC's Twitter background?

[Forrest Taft]

Spartacus?

[HJackson]

Spartacus?

There's already a Blu of Spartacus in the UK. This background is a very interesting development though, unless it's just out of general appreciation for the man.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

It's probably a re-transfer of Barry Lyndon curated by Nothing.

[manicsounds]

I'd speculate "Paths Of Glory", "The Killing" or "The Killer's Kiss" more than Spartacus.