Song Of The South

[brunoflipper]

lighten up, francis!... except the fact that there are not any theaters showing SOTS and they have not shown it in 30 years... disney has said they have no intentions of making this movie available in the US... email them and ask for yourself... it IS NOT illegal to own a legitmate disney produced out of print Laser Disc or PAL VHS (from europe) tape of this movie and to also have a DVD copy...
disney is actually discriminating against the citizens of the US by making the film available overseas but not here... if this movie were sold in the US i'd buy it in a minute...

 

[ohanafamily]

As I said earlier, I HAVE a legitimate copy on LaserDisk. I was curious about what was available and the advertised formats available, so I checked it out (specifically I wanted to know about the DVD-R format). DVCDAVE asked a question about what was available, so I posted the text of a description from another company describing the media and the transfer process that they used.

Another thing, I was thinking about buying a DVD recorder to replace my VCR. I have found out a number of things about the format and backward incompatibilities. I like to check out what people say about this, especially since I get different answers about all of the DVD writing formats.

<*> <*> <*>

While this may be technically Illegal, I do not think that this is a large enough business to get more than a Cease and Desist order. Think about it if it went to trial, they could wind up with a lot of press about this movie that could stir things up.

I will agree with brunoflipper,

lighten up, Francis!

I would like to mention something else to everyone (before I do, I feel it is necessary to add the disclaimer that I do not work for Disney nor do I sell any of these these products). I do not think that it is appropriate to post links to the places selling these videos. It could be construed that you are aiding and abetting these guilty parties (In case I am wrong ). I think the OP and the first several posts were careful not to give a direct address out. Also, people from Disney do regularly read these boards, and they are not beyond closing a vendor down. (IOW by posting the link you give CMs a quick example of one to go after). It is also not prudent to admit openly that you purchased one of these videos in a public forum (Moobooks is right that it is illegal)

JMHO,

 

[popeyeohoh]

Got a dvd i believe converted from pal. paid something like $65.00.
Quality is good, not great. I heard that they are discontinuing it in England. Soon it will be even a lot harder to get.

 

[mikeymars]

>>All of the copies of Song of the South that are being bought and sold in this discussion are illegal.<<

That is a complete pile of excrement.

I own an Disney-issued PAL copy I purchased while travelling in the U.K. That copy is now MY property.

Did you hear me yet, Mooo? MY property. The material on the tape is copyrighted, but the tape itself is MY PROPERTY.

I brought said PERSONAL PROPERTY back with me to my home in the U.S. Since I don't have a PAL VCR, I made a single BACKUP copy of the tape in NTSC format for my OWN PERSONAL USE. I do not share that copy with anyone else, nor do I make subsequent copies.

Per the Fair Use Act, EVERY SINGLE THING I HAVE DONE WITH THAT TAPE IS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY 100% LEGAL. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of lawfully obtained copyrighted material for their own personal use.

Do you GET IT YET, Mooooo? You and the other Disney apologists who want to bury and censor this film are fighting a losing war. The law -- and technology -- is letting your opponents beat a path around you.

You lose, we win.

It's that simple.

 

[ohanafamily]

mikeymars, what is your view on the legality of ordering one online to get the DVD format with the original soundtrack; I own the LaserDisk, but am not sure about "getting a Single Copy backup from an alternate source"

It is more of an ethical question than one of getting caught; see my previous post...


(and yes MooBooks, I know your answer...)

 

[mikeymars]

>>Also SOTS has direct representation of slaves and a plantation. <<

This is 100% incorrect- the film is set during Reconstruction, and the African Americans living at the plantation are sharecroppers.

>>mikeymars, what is your view on the legality of ordering one online to get the DVD format with the original soundtrack<<

My view is Rule 1 of copyright law:

DEFEND YOUR COPYRIGHT, OR LOSE IT.

Or stated differently, those holding copyrights weaken their legal case if they don't show a history of vigorously defending their copyrights.

Now, is Disney "vigorously" defending its copyright on Song of the South?

Here's your answer:

On any given day, there are SCORES of auctions on Ebay for both original PAL copies of SOTS as well as "black market" NTSC or DVD dubs. Be my guest, go look now. ANYONE can see those auctions, including Disney staff and any legal council they care to retain.

Yet the auctions go on, and on, and on, they've been there for years and continue. Some of the sellers have been at it for years, too. Apparently, Disney is either (a) ignorant of that busy secondary/black market, or doesn't want to invest time or resources in going after the illegal sales.

But it gets better: go visit your buddy Google. Type in "Song of the South." What comes back? Scores and scores of sites SELLING illegal copies, both DVD and NTSC VHS. I've been following that market for some time, and there are actually MORE sites selling this stuff now than there was a year ago, or even six months ago.

The moral? Two actually:

- Disney is NOT defending this copyright. Repeat, NOT, NOT, NOT. That is going to sreiously weaken their case if they ever decide to.

- Continued censorship only INCREASES demand. Tell people they "can't have" literature or other creative works, and that ONLY makes them want it MORE. The stupid PC freaks who want to censor SOTS don't get that, which always amuses me.

By the way, if you want to get a sense of just how furious people get at a company when it intentionally sits on product, go visit Amazon, type in "Song of the South DVD" and read the 180+ "reviews" that Amazon users have posted about that non-existent video. The majority are angry discussions of the cowardly behavior of Disney at dealing with PC bullies.

 

[Towncrier]

Under current U.S. law it is not illegal to own (or purchase) “bootleg” recordings, although it is against the law to sell them, tape them or give them away.

 

[mikeymars]

Towncrier is 100% correct, so anyone who has or wants a blackmarket copy, enjoy. Disney, the RIAA or any other media thugs can't touch you. Hear that, Mooo?

Also, of interest from the Disney Auctions site, Q and A about auctions of certain Disney material on eBay (direct cut and paste):

Q. What about legitimate Disney videos, VCDs or DVDs released outside the United States?

A. You cannot sell videos, VCDs or DVDs that were released for sale in other markets. These are called “parallel imports,” and it is a violation of federal law to import or sell product in the United States that was released for sale in other markets.

NOTE: THIS IS INCORRECT. FEDERAL PARALLEL IMPORT LAWS ONLY DEAL WITH WHOLESALERS, NOT RETAILERS.

Q. What about VCDs?

A. The Video Compact Disc (or VCD) is an optical disk format that is popular in some markets in Asia. Disney has released VCDs in some markets, but Disney has not authorized distribution of VCDs in the United States. All Disney VCDs offered for sale in the United States are infringing as pirated product or unauthorized parallel imports and may be taken down.

NOTE: WRONG. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE U.S. WHO OWN VCD PLAYERS, AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PURCHASE DISKS FOR THEM. THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THESE AUCTIONS REGULARLY APPEAR ON EBAY AND ARE NEVER REMOVED.

Q. What about Song of the South?

A. Song of the South has not been released for distribution in the United States in any home viewing format. Any listing that offers any video, VCD or DVD of Song of the South for sale in the United States may be suspended. Any listing that offers Song of the South “converted” for viewing on NTSC video players or Zone 1 DVD players is an illegal copy.

NOTE: YET MORE NONSENSE. IF AN INDIVIDUAL -- NOT A DISTRIBUTOR, AN INDIVIDUAL -- IN THE U.K. WANTS TO SELL A PAL FORMAT COPY OF SOTS TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE U.S., THAT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL AND THERE ISN'T A THING DISNEY CAN DO TO STOP IT. AS FOR THE ILLEGAL COPIES, WHY DOES DISNEY NEVER, EVER, EVER BOTHER TO GET EBAY TO STOP THE SCORES OF AUCTIONS GOING EVERY DAY FOR THESE ITEMS??

 

[d-r]

Censorship isn't exactly the case here. If this were something being forced on the general public by the local, state or federal government I could see your point, but we're talking about a company - a business - a commercial enterprise and its very own product. They can do whatever the hell they want to with it - doesn't matter what reasons they have or whether or not you personally agree with those reasons.

As for fighting a losing battle - it isn't that SOTS just isn't released in the US anymore - I'm pretty sure its not available in any other country anymore either. Of course I'm not sure how perpetuating negative, inaccurate and irresponsible stereotypes could be considered winning anything, but I guess that all depends on one's own personal beliefs. What some call cowardly, others call taking the higher ground.

Melissa

 

[mikeymars]

>>we're talking about a company - a business - a commercial enterprise and its very own product. They can do whatever the hell they want to with it <<

Legally correct statement, but reflecting the same lack of insight into the broader context as the RIAA legal thugs who are currently trying to sue people who downloaded long out-of-print jazz from the 1940s. By the way, that latter group is not only fighting a losing war, but also writing the book on how to ruin an industry.

>>perpetuating negative, inaccurate and irresponsible stereotypes <<

Subjective opinion, in all likelihood from someone has never seen the film in discussion nor read a word of the works of Joel Chandler Harris.

Also, it's noteworthy that those who try to demonize SOTS by throwing out this sort of vague PC propaganda never, ever explain why SOTS is so supposedly horrific but Gone With The Wind, Amos and Andy etc. -- "aged" media that are crammed with blatant ethnic stereotypes -- are O.K., ergo, are all still readily available and being distributed by copyright holders (and aren't being attacked by left wingers).

Why?

Because they don't want that screaming hypocrisy pointed out.

For when it is, the PC argument collapses.

 

[d-r]

I wouldn't make so many assumptions if I were you. I have seen the movie - during its re-release as a child in the 70's and we have a copy of the movie given to us as a Christmas present.

I can explain exactly why SOTS is an inappropriate example of black america during reconstruction. The black sharecroppers are portrayed as happy go lucky field workers just content and thankful to be working for the family of the land. As to why this is unacceptable and GWTW is - frankly its not. GWTW is also an example of Hollywoods white-washing of american history and should be found offfensive by anyone who has even the slightest regard for truth and history. Is GWTW relevant to Disney not releasing SOTS - not in anyway shape or form.

The truth is that black sharecroppers were not very happy. Had a black man spoke to a prominent white lady the way Uncle Remus did in SOTS - reality is that he would have been beat, whipped and lynched. Had be actually been a slave - given he would have had no value being to old to work or sire - there wouldn't have been a bullet a mile away that missed his head. That is the reality. As far as how sweet it is when all the workers come to the house to pray for the little boy - the truth is that some may have for fear of being beaten, but the rest - particulary in the deep south would have been back in their shacks sticking pins through a doll.

To some degree it is a true representation of how white America wants to remember the way things were, I'm sure a lot of people wanted to think that those uncivilized african natives were so much better off when they had the whites to look out for them - either in slavery or out. And I'm sure they loved to think that there was nothing more precious to their mamie than little johnny.
But where is the reality. The poor white sharecroppers weren't so happy and content in the movie were they?

So how is that for a vague reference to the offensive nature of SOTS? And no it in no way makes any other negative stereotype okay(GWTW, Amos & Andy etc...), but again that is irrelevant as this discussion is specifically about SOTS. Disney can do what they want to with the movie - just like Ted Turner can do what he wants to with GWTW. I'm not sure how you can say I'm being hypocritical when I think they all are offensive and its not okay for one and not the other, but again - that isn't up to Disney.

How do you think you would feel watching the movie if you were a black child - what wonderful lessons do you think it would teach?

Better yet - do you think its an a positive and accurate portrayal of black history?

The answers to those questions pretty much tell it all.

Now do I believe it should be withheld from release - well as long as most people still can't even see why its questionable - probably. Do I think that with the right additions and historical information/prefacing that SOTS could be a nice learning tool about historical race relations - sure.

It amazes me that having concern for truth, history and other peoples feelings has become such a negative concept in this world. Again one's "lack of insight" is anothers high ground.

Melissa

 

[Mooobooks]

My previous post was OBVIOUSLY about the illegally made copies (aka bootlegs) of Song of the South, not the legimately sold versions on laser disc in Japan or PAL videotape in England, or SECAM videotape in France (all three of which I own).
Mikeymars point, that he may make a copy in NTSC of any of these items if he has purchased one of them, or if it has been given to him as a gift, is correct. However that was not MY point, since most of this discussion has been about illegally made copies on NTSC videotapes and DVDs that are being sold on the Internet and eBay.
Any copy of Song of the South on an NTSC videotape, or on a DVD, is illegally made, and you are encouraging criminal activity by purchasing it. In fact, is even illegal for copies like this to be given away. No ifs, ands, or buts. They are illegally made by criminals and you are encouraging piracy by purchasing these items.

[Edited by Moderator]

I don't apologize for the Disney company and they can do whatever the hell they want. Personally I would prefer that the film is released because I want a beautiful copy on DVD because it's a great movie. However, I will not patronize a criminal in order to purchase one.
Mikeymars ranting that the Disney company is going to have trouble enforcing their copyright if they don't protect it now is laughable. While it's true that there is legal precedent for companies having to enforce their ownership of copyright in order to maintain it, this is not one of those cases. It would be almost impossible for Disney to prosecute all the people making bootleg copies of Song of the South because these are all small potatoes dealers. Little guys knocking them off on home machines. Disney doesn't waste its legal time and money on small potatoes: they go after the major companies overseas like those in China who are making hundreds of millions of dollars off illegally pirated DVDS and videotapes.

[Edited by Moderator]

A note to d-r, of course you're correct about the facts of black life during reconstruction. However, there is another more important lesson that is to be learned from watching this film: when the little boy is injured, no comfort from his uptight white parents will suffice: only Uncle Remus can give this child the love that he needs to heel him. And only Uncle Remus can teach those uptight white parents what love truly is. That is the most powerful message in the movie, and it is a message that certainly (at least from this white boy's point of view) doesn't denigrate the black population. Quite the opposite. It makes the white folks look like emotionally-stunted idiots. And it endows Uncle Remus with almost magical powers of healing. Of course one can find this archetype in many cultures igoing back through the centuries (read Joseph Cambell's works).

 

[d-r]

" note to d-r, of course you're correct "

moobooks... I didn't write anything here, Melissa did, sorry. I was bored enough with this three or four times ago when we went through it. As I've said before, if anyone is really a student of film or Disney they can get a copy easy enough. It really doesn't bother me if Disney doesn't put it in wide release.

I also know that it can be a sweet movie, and I know that there are several positive spins to the relationship between Remus and Johny. Heck it can be downright maudlin and syrupy. We can talk about how all the white folks are too busy for the chillins and only wise old remus can teach them good lessons, or how the big white boss lady actually lets remus talk right back at her sometimes, even when we all know he ought to know his place better, or how all the happy darkies come out and sing when poor Johny gets sick - if they didn't love that white boy so much they wouldn't be out there singing for him to get well, would they? I honestly do agree that we could talk about positive things between the races here, and positive characteristics of the African-American characters- I truly do. Yes, this story shows black and white folks who care for each other and love each other. But to argue that this is an accurate historical depiction of the reconstruction, well, that is a point I can't see somebody being able to make in an honest way. I am a lot more proud of the real, honest to goodness actual history of the south, of the real honest struggles that all of our ancestors went through, and the hard work and sacrifice that brought all of us to the point where we are today, than I am of this sort of revisionism. If this is the best tale of white and black folks loving each other that we can come up with for our kids, well, that's a shame to me. It isn't the overall tale of the characters, it is the nuance. This is a 1940s view of the world, not a 2000's.

Ultimately, like most arguments on the internet, this is a futile one. Disney is a company that owns the movie and chooses not to release it. It comes up every couple of months and the same old people say the same old opinions, blah blah blah. But ultimately, honestly and frankly, anyone who can watch this movie and honestly claim that there are not negative, hurtful stereotypes in it is the walking talking self-supporting definition of why it doesn't bother me that the film is not in wide release. That's just my opinion. I'm going to resist looking at this again as best I can. Moobooks I respect your integrity. I have a UK tape, and a home made US dub of it, I don't have any moral qualms about it, but I respect your integrity.

 

[mikeymars]

>>I can explain exactly why SOTS is an inappropriate example of black america during reconstruction. The black sharecroppers are portrayed as happy go lucky field workers just content and thankful to be working for the family of the land.<<

Oh, now we get it. Walt was the literal devil - he should have portrayed the African Americans (earth to the supposed PC police- the term "black" went out of fashion years ago) as unhappy ex-slaves, and the script should have shown them in revolt, burning down the main house at the end of the movie.

>>GWTW is also an example of Hollywoods white-washing of american history and should be found offfensive by anyone who has even the slightest regard for truth and history.<<

Yawn....Next the thought police will be going after every Western John Wayne ever made. How horrid his presentation of the American Indian......

>>Is GWTW relevant to Disney not releasing SOTS<<

To any thinking marketer, yes. But socialists don't understand that subject matter.

>>Had a black man spoke to a prominent white lady the way Uncle Remus did in SOTS - reality is that he would have been beat, whipped and lynched.<<

Oh, and you have proof that every single white in the South of the 1880s had a negative relationship with every single African American? You must live in the North or West - that's were one always finds the simplistic ibigots who demonize the South so.

>>I'm not sure how you can say I'm being hypocritical when I think they all are offensive <<

LOL - easy for you to say, given you would have NEVER mentioned Gone With The Wind, Amos and Andy or any other film other than SOTS if I hadn't pointed out that the leftos never go after anything BUT SOTS. Why SOTS? Because that particular film scares the heck out of liberals, because it is a family-friendly film, and the lefto PC thought police desperately want to keep anything they haven't put through revsionist steam-cleaning away from parents and their children.

And speaking of hypocritical, interesting to note that while Disney continues to try and bury this film domestically, it is not reluctant at all to promote it overseas. If SOTS content is so offensive, then why was it shown last Spring on national TV (in the middle of the day) in the UK ? British kids, sitting at home during the Easter holiday period, were able to watch this movie and enjoy its content and -- guess what -- they're didn't subsequently start running around the streets, subjecting kids from any ethnic minority to taunts about slavery (and, let's face it, it was the English who profitted very well from the slave trade).

>>Do I think that with the right additions and historical information/prefacing<<

This is code for "only re-release it if Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun are allowed to record half hour lectures crammed with revisionist history that will precede the film."

>>How do you think you would feel watching the movie if you were a black child - what wonderful lessons do you think it would teach?<<

For your convenience, I'll let some African Americans (again, that is correct vernacular, unlike your un-PC use of "black") speak for themselves. Here are some opinions on the films from users of Amazon.com. Direct quotes (don't beleive me? Go check out the site yourself):

As a person of color I am proud of this film, September 15, 2003
Reviewer: dj (see more about me) from Boston

As a person of color I have seen plenty of racism on television to last a lifetime. I know racism when I see it, believe me, but Song of the South is not it. It is a tribute to our proud African-American heritage and should be seen. Uncle Remus is clearly admired in this movie more than any other character. The animation and music ranks among the best work ever done by Disney and the black folklore is included. Considering that the REALLY harmful Birth of a Nation is widely available and hailed as a masterpiece, adds injury to insult regarding the absence of this classic that is a proud illustration of the African-American heritage.

13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

I Am Black, And I Loved This Movie, May 15, 2002
Reviewer: suboddie (see more about me) from Sacramento, CA USA

One reviewer bemoaned the fact that none of the reviews had been written by a black person. Well, here I am. I loved this movie. I grew up in Brooklyn, New York and never knew about racism until it began to show up on television. My friends were white and black: Italian, Puerto Rican, African and from all over the Caribbean Islands and Western Europe. We all went to see this movie together and we came out singing. The young boy's decision to spend time with the people he felt most comfortable with appealed to us, although we were probably too young to understand what we liked about it. Slavery was / is / and always will be an abominable institution, but it happened and to be able to build a positive story around such a regrettable time in man's history is one of the reasons why Walt Disney and "Song Of The South" are such lasting icons. My name is on the list.

>>It amazes me that having concern for truth, history and other peoples feelings has become such a negative concept in this world. <<

It never did. What has become negative is the horrific intolerance of the thought police, who don't want to allow people to view art and come to their own personal assessments of it.

>>I've never called anyone on any board a nasty name before<<

But the moment you start erroneously calling people crimminals (because of poorly written argument, which is pointed out), you do. Talk about being not being able to take what you put out....

>>Any copy of Song of the South on an NTSC videotape, or on a DVD, is illegally made<<

Wrong again. Those made for PERSONAL USE by the owner of a officially distributed copy are NOT illegally made. Refer to the FAIR USE ACT if you still don't get it yet. Yes, to sell said copy is illegal (to buy is not - "unethical" perhaps to the thought police, but not at all illegal), but again, if you don't defend your copyrights, don't whine when the courts ignore you when you finally wake up.

>>While it's true that there is legal precedent for companies having to enforce their ownership of copyright in order to maintain it (MASSIVE, MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT), this is not one of those cases. <<

Oh, really? Certain people obviously missed the prior discussion. A year ago, a Google search for "Song of the South video" came up with 3-- maybe 4 at best -- sources.

Today? I stopped counting after the first 6 pages of listings.

>>Disney doesn't waste its legal time and money on small potatoes:<<

I guess Amazon is a "small potato" then.

How so? Well, certain anal-fixated people might be interested in checking out Amazon. Go to their site, and put "Song Of The South DVD" in the search field.

What comes back is an interesting page. Amazon admits they don't have a video to sell, but readily refer visitors to several of "illegal" sources that are selling copies. Again, that is AMAZON doing a PUBLIC referral. Disney isn't just "not" defending their copyright - they're literally bending over and letting anyway and everyone (from Billy Bob in his garage to partners with AMAZON) rape the sales potential of any future release right out of their you-know-what.

And those who ignore that -- implying the copyright defense horse hasn't already eft the barn -- are beyond laughable and ignorant.

>>in the future, please remove your mouth from your rectum before talking.<<

We don't know where a certain person's anal fixation came from, much less why they are obsessed with sharing it here. Some chip on their shoulder, perhaps?

 

[lrodk]

This discussion has come to an end. Feel free to continue your personal attacks on another forum or via email. I would like to add that profanity, in any shape or from, is not tolerated on the DIS.

Luis