I don't see anything illegal about it. It is someone charging a fee to repair or improve something you own. The illegality would come into play if I then decided to charge admission to the general public to view it. If I own a vinyl record that is scratched, and send it off to someone who has the capability to wipe it clean and replace the content, it is still and has always been my vinyl record. And no, there is nothing wrong with charging a fee for restoring someone's property.

My father, a practicing attorney in Ohio, and my brother-in-law, a practicing attorney in New Jersey, both agree. Now, to repair material and attempt to re-sell as brand-new would be an issue. But to repair something and charge a fee to do so is not.

In which case, any super 8 prints that have been re-recorded shouldn't be advertised for sale on here as they basically have counterfeit soundtracks!

But I seriously doubt the studios care. They now need to track the bits stolen illegally on the net that is where piracy as such is most widespread. Doubt the few prints we pass around will be hurting the studios, we are small scale compared to streaming

They can only ever benefit from such Stuart.
I prefer to buy films that have been re recorded. I've had Beauty & The Beast and Who Framed Roger Rabbit arrive with me originally with a German dubbed track and the quality was sensational by their previous owners.

All I could ever do was try to match them!

I have never heard an original recording sound anything like as good on Super 8mm.

No Stuart, not if they are listed as pre-owned. Pre-owned or used is fine to re-sell, no matter how modified.

It is when you modify something pre-owned or used, and then list to sell as BRAND-NEW that an issue arises.

Back in the 1990's we operated a truck dealership, and this very topic came up endlessly. Say I buy a 1968 VW Beetle. I remove the engine and transmission. I remove the seats, dashboard, steering wheel, literally EVERYTHING. I chop the frame to pieces, leaving only the section of the frame that has the serial number on it. I then rebuild the entire car using 2018 parts and pieces. It is still a 1968 VW Beetle in the eyes of the law. Granted, it is a vastly modified and improved 1968 VW Beetle, but still a 1968 VW Beetle - no laws have been broken. Now, if I attempt to pass it off to sell as a 2018 VW Beetle, I would be in serious trouble.

Let's bring it closer to home. I buy a 1982 Super 8 Digest of ET. 36 years later, the sound is terrible. I pay someone to re-stripe it and replace the soundtrack with 2018 parts. It is still a 1982 product - modified, but a 1982 product. It would be perfectly legal to advertise it as a 1982 Super 8 Digest of ET with a modern 2018 soundtrack. It would be illegal to advertise it as a brand-new 2018 Super 8 Digest of ET.

Precisely Michael!

Personally, I have no idea why anyone could or would object to the modification,or lets call it the modernization, of our films soundtracks.

With two examples sat side by side, both viewed and listened to, I seriously doubt anyone would choose the one with an original recording from analogue source with all of the additional noise over and above the tapes own hiss.

If it were possible on mag stripe to do away altogether with the tape losses, better still!
Of course this could never be possible using the magnetic recording and playback process, but if it were...

Well sure, I would do it in a heartbeat if I had something that needed it (and I'm sure I probably do, just don't know it yet!).

We could go on arguing this forever and getting nowhere. The problem as I see it is not taking off the soundtrack from the film you supplied, doctoring it, then putting it back, but using a completely different source. I wouldn't say that the product was broken, what sound doesn't suit you may be fine for someone else. Then we have the case where you buy a film in one language and want it re-recorded in another. Again, the product is not broken, it just doesn't suit you, also you are not using your original soundtrack, but one taken from another source.
Also as previously pointed out, but ignored by those who don't like it, is that European law allows you to copy as long as it's for your own use, and not profit making. This is being conducted as a business; also the FBI warning on DVDs that not just the image is protected by copyright, but also the soundtrack.

It doesn't matter what we think, but what the authorities think. The only person who needs to know whether it's legal to do this is Alberto, and he isn't a member of this forum that I am aware.

Robert is correct — the problem becomes when the unlicensed copying is SOLD as a service, not personal use, pure and simple. That’s why I wouldn’t touch any of today’s new Super 8 prints/features/makeshift “digests” with a 10-foot pole due to their unlicensed status. (And whatever lab is printing these are just as guilty.)

And the studios are indeed paying attention. As just one example, when someone posted a segment of the (illegal) Super 8 “digest” of Captain America on YouTube, the relevant studio had the link taken down due to the digest’s copyright infraction. Some of my job has involved work with the major studios, and they are adament (and rightly so) about proper work through copyright licenses. Just because it involves a format perceived as “being from the past,” and its related tiny numbers, doesn’t make it any less wrong in their eyes. I’ve seen the studios go after far less.

Then might be easiest (and best) to agree to disagree and stop flogging a dead horse....

Regardless, it’s the “inconvenient truth” facing Super 8 collectors in this day and age given companies that licensed films for home use (e.g., Castle, Ken, Blackwalk, etc.) no longer exist. As a result, steer clear of anything else on Super 8 that’s not specifically licensed for home use.