I find it rather infuriating that people can freely release titles like The Game and Blade Runner, solely because they have better picture quality, yet are easily available commercially. The only real difference between them is the video quality and the extras included. I decided to release something that has improved audio quality over the commercially released version and is also the original cut, and it's somehow not ok to do so. This is just hypocrisy, because you can't deem one release is ok and another isn't just because one has better video and one has better audio. I was chastised "just" because it was a DTS version. Blade Runner "just" has better resolution. What exactly is the difference (barring the extras)?
Yes, the original cut of Ong Bak with English subs can be purchased from Australia, which is fine, if you like watching a sped up version with inferior audio. The Game and Blade Runner can both be purchased domestically, and are the same cuts, yet the only improvement is the video quality. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for these improved releases, but I'm thoroughly baffled.
My problem is this: How does improved video quality alone make it ok? What exactly is the criteria for an acceptable release? How can there be this double standard?
I get the strong suspicion that my thread being locked has very little to do with it being "piracy", and more to do with my status on this board, which some view as less than desirable. I don't really mind the rules being enforced, but if they are going to be, then they need to apply to everyone equally, and not just because of the whims of the moderators.
Only difference is anamorphic video and LD extras
Original cut in NTSC with Eng subs & DTS audio
In terms of differences, my DVD actually has more of them, not less.
I'd like a logical explanation about this, and why one is ok and one isn't.