It's ok that he wants to keep his stuff to himself. It's just not ok that he wants to tell us all kinds of information about the fight but won't share any of it. And one poster a few years ago, I forget his name, had an excellent point. Who the hell is Klompton to argue with someone, saying they are wrong about a fighter for instance, citing sometimes primarily a fight only he has as proof?
I used to think like this. But the truth is that labor and time aren’t free, and he had to work hard to collect the footage he has. He does do licensing deals, showing his willingness to “share” his collection in exchange for compensation, which he deserves. Now, if he were to make a concerted effort not to share any footage, despite concerted efforts to be properly compensated, that would be another story.
Call me stupid, but I don't get it. If you have the footage, you can do whatever you want with it, can't you ?!
That is what I was talking about. There are countless who would be willing to pay in order to see it. Nobody's forcing him to do it for free
Have you reached out to make an offer? Im totally down to pitch in for a forum-wide acquisition/licensing purchase.
No. This is why ESPN sits on thousands of fights it will never air. You can own a physical copy, but that doesn't grant licensing rights.
No you can’t. That’s why ESPN can’t air tons of fights they have. I can’t go get a copy of a Star Wars movie, set up a theater and charge people to see it. I also cannot put it on YouTube. The reason is that ESPN doesn’t own the rights to it (they thought Jimmy Jacobs and Bill Cayton had obtained the licensing for the rights — they bought copies of old fight films and got whoever they bought it from to sign a document but they had no legal standing to do so, making said document moot) but someone could pop up and claim they own the rights and sue their pants off. Same with me and a movie. That’s why YouTube takes down stuff all the time. The people who own the rights to it can do these things — that’s what the rights are. What I suggest you do is get a lawyer to draw up a contract that indemnifies you to pay all legal fees and costs, including any judgment or settlement, for the rights to the film you want to see and put up a huge bond in escrow to cover any such costs Klompton may incur, and then also offer him a fee on top of that to put the fight on this forum or YouTube or wherever (maybe a private server that those who participate in the viewing can share). If he turns that down, it’s still his business. But at least you can try. But one of the things he 100 percent CAN do is not share it. Again, go back to his post that someone dropped — he and the other investors agreed not to share it. That’s an agreement he entered into and without that agreement he probably wouldn’t have the film at all. So it may be as simple as him wanting to stay true to his word. And to fault him for that just because you (selfishly) want to see it … nah. As stated, I don’t like the guy, but he’s under no obligation to share something he owns any more than you are. And if you haven’t even reached out it make him an offer, why are you complaining? For all you know, he’d invite you to his house for a private viewing if you brought a six-pack and a couple of steaks to grill. Until you take that step, how do you know?
Klompton has said if you go to his house he'll show you a film. He has said that. Probably that doesn't apply to everyone though
I am fairly certain he is referring to his discovery of the Langford v Jeannette fight. He got very upset when the friend of one of the four others mentioned above, told everyone here about it. I don't know if the friend who spilled the beans still posts here but he is the author of a very popular boxing biography.