What are Kodak's true motives?

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

OK.

But is it a A3 or a A3+?

A3+ is bigger.

[downix]

Just A3, letter-sized paper.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Letter size?
Isn´t letter size A4?

[downix]

DOH! A4, right.

[Jim Carlile]

Moviestuff wrote:

You're right. I have no idea what your point is. How much money Kodak makes on 16mm Kodachrome processing has no bearing on this topic. 16mm Kodachrome is still around only because its fate is controlled by another division than S8 Kodachrome. Kodak simply hasn't gotten around to axing 16mm Kodachrome but they will, sooner rather than later. Therefore, the existence of 16mm in Kodachrome has no bearing on the future of S8 Kodachrome. You are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.

I hate to fill you in, but KODAK made the connection when they claimed that they were keeping 16, but discontinuing S8, because of processing concerns. Their rationale makes no sense. So why don't they just fess up and say they're getting rid of K40, instead of cooking up some kind of phony pretext? THAT'S the point, cowboy.

About the Yale thing-- nobody ever claimed that they were breaking the law. There's no"law"against not returning offensive footage. And many of you-- YOU INCLUDED-- actually agreed with their content policy and thought it was pretty righteous. All I did was point out how Yale-- and many OTHER labs in the past-- enforced policies like this.

Kodak Labs seized footage all the time, not so much because of moral concerns, but because they were worried about some jurisdictions--like the South-- going after them in criminal court. Don't believe it? I suggest you ask around, rather than rely upon the word of an "attorney" of yours who is ignorant of lab practice in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Or check old issues of Super 8 Filmaker, who at LEAST yearly warned in print about sending nudity to Kodak or many other labs.

[MovieStuff]

I hate to fill you in, but KODAK made the connection when they claimed that they were keeping 16, but discontinuing S8, because of processing concerns. Their rationale makes no sense. So why don't they just fess up and say they're getting rid of K40, instead of cooking up some kind of phony pretext? THAT'S the point, cowboy.

But that's not quite what you originally posted, Tonto. Your original post claimed that, because 16mm film was still being processed, then there is no reason that Kodachrome can't be processed and, therefore, the demise of Super 8 had nothing to do with processing.

Here is what you originally wrote:

The fact that Kodak is supposedly still going to be offering 16mm Kodachrome brings up a huge and obvious contradiction: how many labs worldwide process 16, but don't process S8? None that I can think of. If this is the case, their press-release is more than a little disingenuous. Processing S8 has nothing to do with their decision. And if labs continue to process 16 because it will still be made available, why won't they process S8? Since they can easily, I don't think processing old rolls of S8 is going to be a problem as long as K-16 is available.

While I agree that as long as 16mm Kodachrome is being processed then there is no reason that Super 8 can't, it seemed to me you were implying Kodak had made a conscious decision to keep K-16 but get rid of K-S8. I was trying to point out that K-16 will eventually get the ax, too, thus the existence of Kodachrome in 16mm had no bearing on the future of K40 in Super 8. It would now appear that we are essentially saying the same thing in different ways. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

About the Yale thing-- nobody ever claimed that they were breaking the law.

You did. What you described that they were doing is, and always has been, illegal. Only they weren't doing what you claimed they were doing and still aren't.

There's no"law"against not returning offensive footage.

Actually there is. They can not keep anything that does not belong to them. They can only keep it if the bill is not paid. If the content of the footage is against the law, such as child porn, then they can hang on to the footage and call the authorities but they can't just keep footage they find distasteful if the footage belongs to the client. That is called conversion and it is illegal.

And many of you-- YOU INCLUDED-- actually agreed with their content policy and thought it was pretty righteous.

Of course that is not true, Jim. I never said I agreed with the specifics of their content policy. I said they had a right to enforce it because it did not violate the law. That is a far cry different from your claims that they were breaking the law and getting away with it repeatedly via the courts.

Kodak Labs seized footage all the time, not so much because of moral concerns, but because they were worried about some jurisdictions--like the South-- going after them in criminal court. Don't believe it?

Should I? So far everything you have posted about Yale's supposed illegal activities has totally wrong and anecdotal evidence about Kodak's past is hardly a substitute for proving your claims about Yale.

I suggest you ask around,

Hey, you're the one making the claims so why don't you do the leg work and post some links to evidence that supports what you say? It isn't up to me to disprove your claims, though I did when I posted a letter from my lawyer on the subject. Regarding such:

...rather than rely upon the word of an "attorney" of yours who is ignorant of lab practice in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

I suppose that if you go back far enough into a more conservative past, you could find labs getting away with all kinds of stuff that was considered illegal because customers were too embarrassed to take the lab to court and explain their "dirty pictures", no matter how innocent by today's standards.

But your specific claim was that the courts supported Yale's repeated theft over and over and that they were still doing it. Thus the 60s, 70s and 80s have nothing to do with the debate you and I had. My attorney was commenting on what you claimed Yale was currently doing and had been doing for years. He pointed out that you were wrong, which you were, and we ALL asked you to provide anything -even a single court docket number- to support your repeated claims that Yale had been taken to court many times over the years for theft and that the courts supported them.

You didn't and still haven't. In fact, ultimately it came to light that you had never used Yale so you didn't even have first hand experience with their policies! Then you said you were just repeating what others had told you about what Yale USED to do. The old "I have it on good authority" nonsense.

I'm not going to re-debate this with you, Jim. If you have something new to share with everyone that actually supports all your claims, then post it. Until then, give it a rest.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv