Kino

[MichaelB]

I'm sure Criterion would prefer all other territories be locked to B or C for the same reason.

I agree, but the crucial difference between Criterion and Kino is that Criterion has been locking all its Blu-rays from the get-go, even when this hasn't been contractually required. So no-one can reasonably accuse them of cynicism and/or opportunism over this.

[pro-bassoonist]

They worded it that way instead of saying "due to a hypocritical contractual error which screwed MoC to the benefit of Kino."

The statement is worded exactly as it should have been - without any hypocritical embellishments, taking into account only what has been officially revealed by the two parties affected by this fiasco. Since I am fairly certain you do not work for any of them, you are also as "uninformed to the situation" as are "the bulk of bluray.com readers".

With other words, you have absolutely no right to insinuate that Blu-ray.com has somehow officially sided with any of the two parties.

Pro-B

[Mozart]

Oh, boo-hoo. Not every business decision is going to be to everyone's liking. And, frankly, if I'm running a business, you bet your ass I'm adopting all the perfectly legal means to ensure my product makes the most profit I can in my market.

I only want to do business with 100% ethically correct entities. And in my opinion Kino's action does not fulfill that criteria. If your standards are not that high or if you dont care about ethical standards or if you cant afford to act this way, then your attitude seems pretty consistent to me.

zedz, you're implying (as many others here have) that this was an intentional plan on Kino's part rather than a simple error despite the fact that there isn't any evidence of this.

As others and me have pointed out before, it does not matter what the reason for the result is. What matters is, that the result gets fully reversed or the other party compensated.

Kino's really getting raked over the coals in this thread, and I wonder if some posters have maybe taken this a little more personally due to the fact that it directly affects a valued member of the board.

I am buying lots of MoCs works. And if due to the loss of revenue one or more releases, which I want to have, dont get released, then I am indirectly affected by this. Due to the fact, that MoC is a small niche player, I have a feeling that this may could happen.

To sum it up: I am not directly affected, but sometimes you have to stand for something, because otherwise you will fall for everything!

[fiddlesticks]

I only want to do business with 100% ethically correct entities.

Good luck with that.

[swo17]

Kino blocking MoC out of the US market by insisting that each of their releases be region-locked was an intentional plan on Kino's part to keep sales in the US that would have otherwise gone to MoC. A perfectly legal plan, and one that MoC agreed to, but still one that if not unethical, is just...greedy. Rather than make a version of Metropolis that people all over the world would want to import over all other versions, Kino opted to impose a hurdle (the cost of a region-free Blu-ray player) on US buyers looking to import anything else.

I guess I just don't see how this is unethical

Reread what I said.

[Titus]

Reread what I said.

Still not getting it. Kino's a small, niche label, and them trying to secure the American market for their biggest release of the year seems more like common sense than greed to me. It was in their best interest for the releases to be region locked, so why wouldn't they campaign for it? They aren't a charity organization, nor are they a major label like Criterion -- I imagine losing sales to MoC (a company with a pretty loyal following in the US, and one who would likely steal some sales from Kino even if they had licensed the Kalat/Rosenbaum commentary simply due to brand loyalty) would be a pretty big blow for them. But, again, this is kind of a red herring. I have no objection to people being upset over the MoC being region locked (I'm disappointed myself), my only quibble is the severity of the criticism that is being directed at Kino for what is most likely an error of negligence/stupidity. Perhaps I'm just more forgiving of dumb mistakes than most, being so prone to them myself.

[zitherstrings]

We're all really just mad it was KINO and not MOC who made the error. If it had been reversed we'd be all over the MOC, snapping it up in droves.

[captveg]

We're all really just mad it was KINO and not MOC who made the error. If it had been reversed we'd be all over the MOC, snapping it up in droves.

LOL. Now THAT would have been interesting to see. I imagine that if Criterion ever neglects to region code to A that non-US consumers will be praising the error as a revelation.

[aox]

We're all really just mad it was KINO and not MOC who made the error. If it had been reversed we'd be all over the MOC, snapping it up in droves.

I am in this statistic. I would love to have MOC's edition. I am abstaining from KINO's.

[onedimension]

Kino also presumably has fewer resources than Criterion, so any extra money they make off this misunderstanding could up the quality of their future restorations/releases..

[TIVOLI]

Whenever possible, I prefer MOC editions, and as someone who is region A-trapped, am overjoyed to hear that Profound Desires of the Gods is coming out on DVD. But I do think that there was somewhat of a rush to judgment that Kino was intentionally switching region codes on Metropolis. This attributes far too much cunning, and disregards the possibility of far too little competence, on Kino's part. In the absence of hard evidence of intentionality, a boycott seems like an extreme overreaction. Perhaps it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.

[Zazou dans le Metro]

Kino also presumably has fewer resources than Criterion, so any extra money they make off this misunderstanding could up the quality of their future restorations/releases..

Hell yeah. If it means a gleaming Avant Garde volume 4 with more Epstein et al let's get them mugging some old ladies too.

[zedz]

Zedz is one of the most level-headed posters on this site, and his last post is almost guilting people into boycotting Kino products. I'm just not seeing anything that Kino did to warrant such a reaction.

Well, I'm not sure how you get to there from "it's up to the consumer," but the problem is, we will never know how exactly the mistake was made, and what the internal processes at Kino were leading up to it. There are an infinite range of scenarios, from concerned, diligent staff at Kino communicating everything with absolute clarity and double- and triple-checking every step of the authoring process regarding region-coding, but the damn thing coming out wrong regardless; to the guys who insisted on region coding simply forgetting to pass it on to the disc producer and manufacturers; to Kino deliberately saying nothing, or burying the relevant info in a busy document, and hoping the disc authoring reverts to the region settings on every other Kino BluRay; to somebody actually telling the manufacturers to make it region-free.

Kino claim it was a genuine mistake, but, given any of the above scenarios, they'd say the same thing, surely? For me, the background to the decision (viz. region coding being initiated by Kino) and the fact that it's not just the disc but the cover art that 'goofed up', suggests that there was certainly negligence and possibly collusion on their part. And this needs to be considered in the context of their initial, hypocritical decision to insist on region-coding in the first place, something that already left a bad taste in my mouth. The consequences for MoC are serious. If you want to signal your disapproval of Kino's actions, you could refuse to buy Metropolis, but if you weren't going to be buying that in the first place, so what? So you can boycott other Kino products, but if you're only going to boycott the ones you don't intend to buy, that's not exactly a boycott, is it?

Personally, I'm going to be avoiding their products for a while, including things I actually would like to own, like the new Keaton BluRays, and opting for alternative international releases where possible. To tell the truth, I was already planning on the latter course of action after hearing about their self-serving attitude to region-coding for Metropolis only. If they want to keep the US market exclusively for themselves on big releases, they can have it. Why should I subsidize a restrictive business practice I don't approve of?

[captveg]

Why should I subsidize a restrictive business practice I don't approve of?

Will you still buy Criterions?

[MichaelB]

Why should I subsidize a restrictive business practice I don't approve of?

Will you still buy Criterions?

Well, there's not much point in me buying Criterion Blu-rays at the moment, as I'm not likely to be able to play them for a very long time!

But I don't see how the situation is comparable. Criterion has always region-locked its Blu-rays, regardless of whether it's contractually necessary or whether there's an alternative edition in Regions B or C - so they're voluntarily restricting the size of their own market. So when they ask a distributor like MoC to region-lock too, they're doing no more than asking them to do exactly what they demonstrably do themselves - so while it's certainly irritating, there's no sense that Criterion are being opportunist, cynical or that they're acting in bad faith.

[onedimension]

We're spoiled by Criterion because they appear to marry commercial success/sustenance/profit$ and good business ethics with high aesthetic standards & values..Kino makes more slip-ups & compromises. I wouldn't assume deliberate wrongdoing on their part, but I suspect that this particular incident is too esoteric to make major waves - I had to read this thread several times to even grasp how Kino had done wrong.

Anyway, I hope Kino's shadily acquired dollars expedite the release of some restored Tarkovsky blus.

[aox]

Speaking of Tarkovsky, KINO has Stalker, The Mirror, and The Sacrifice, right? Is there any word on a blu ray release soon of any or all of those films?

I thought I heard that they were working on The Sacrifice, but that was back in '08 or '09 and it will soon be '11.

[captveg]

so while it's certainly irritating, there's no sense that Criterion are being opportunist, cynical or that they're acting in bad faith.

C'mon, of course Criterion is being opportunistic. They're a business, not a charity.

[Duncan Hopper]

If Criterion were indeed an 'opportunistic business' as you put it, they would make at least some of their blurays region free to rake in the huge world sales.

[captveg]

If Criterion were indeed an 'opportunistic business' as you put it, they would make at least some of their blurays region free to rake in the huge world sales.

So, Kino is "opportunistic" when they Region lock their disc to A, but Criterion is not when they do.

And when Kino is releasing open Region discs they are a benevolent enterprise, but Criterion is benevolent when locking to Region A.

Seems like a consistent stance....

[matrixschmatrix]

This has been repeated over and over again: Kino is being opportunistic by insisting that discs are region locked only when it is of benefit to them. Criterion region locks discs regardless of whether this is a contractual obligation or anyone is competing with them. Criterion is consistent, Kino is not. Consistent is different from opportunistic.

[Titus]

Well, I'm not sure how you get to there from "it's up to the consumer,"

The specific comment I was referring to was: "They pulled a fast one on MoC and got away with it. You can choose to cheerlead from the sidelines if you're so inclined, applauding their business acumen, or you can choose to spend your money elsewhere."

Sorry if I misrepresented your post, but the way that read to me was that to continue buying from Kino is inherently supporting their underhanded business tactics. And as someone who just a few days ago ordered the new Keaton blu, the (perceived) implication that I was endorsing their supposed corruption left a sour taste in my mouth.

Personally, I'm going to be avoiding their products for a while, including things I actually would like to own, like the new Keaton BluRays, and opting for alternative international releases where possible. To tell the truth, I was already planning on the latter course of action after hearing about their self-serving attitude to region-coding for Metropolis only. If they want to keep the US market exclusively for themselves on big releases, they can have it. Why should I subsidize a restrictive business practice I don't approve of?

What I don't understand is what a boycott like this will accomplish. If too many people follow your example Kino could be hamstrung pretty badly, which would be worse for consumers longterm than Kino's opportunistic stance on region-coding (which has affected only one title so far, I believe). They've become a very important company, so we're all going to be worse off if they end up being hurt by an overreaction to the Metropolis situation.

[captveg]

One can be consistent AND opportunistic. These are not mutually exclusive traits. Criterion is just that: consistently Region coding to A because they made the business decision that this was their best business interests. Why? Likely because if they made this a standard practice they would help encourage other territories to do the same, as well as be able to bid on US rights on titles without needing to clarify their position on Region coding, as well as have a lower chance of a potential authoring mistake occurring when a business practice is not consistent (like Kino just experienced).

Criterion has taken a formal, long term opportunity stance, and Kino is taking the short term, case-by-case opportunity stance. Neither is a "wrong" approach or an unethical one.

My point in asking "Will you still buy Criterions?" was to point out the blatantly inconsistent stance in this thread on region coding. When Kino does it it's cause for boycotts, big talk and moral outrage because they dislike Kino. When Criterion does it no one gives a crap, because they *like* Criterion. Talk about your double standards, and to me, anyone that is fighting the evil business practice of region coding and buying Criterions left and right has their own hypocritical habits to sort out. Just don't preach to others about taking stands with hard lines drawn in the sand over the issue of region coding, because that line is obviously crossed every time a Criterion release is purchased by the Kino boycotting crowd.

[matrixschmatrix]

Criterion has taken a formal, long term opportunity stance, and Kino is taking the short term, case-by-case opportunity stance. Neither is a "wrong" approach or an unethical one.

opportunistic: taking immediate advantage, often unethically, of any circumstance of possible benefit.

(You see in case that wasn't clear, Criterion isn't opportunistic because it would be to their immediate benefit not to region lock releases where they aren't contractually obligated to do so. That means that while they may be annoying, they are not hypocritical or opportunistic. They may have made that decision because they felt it was overall to their benefit, but that is not relevant to this discussion.)

[swo17]

Region locking restricts sales. It is inherently non-opportunistic, unless it is another company's sales you are restricting. This was Kino's motivation behind region locking this one release (restricting the superior MoC version's sales in the US) and it is precisely what makes them opportunistic with regard to their Blu-ray sales and Criterion not.

And by the way, I love Kino and own many of their releases. This has nothing to do with brand loyalty.