SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 12:12pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Discussion of...     General Chat  ›  Content theft: The big picture Moderators: bert
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 9 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Content theft: The big picture  (currently 5912 views)
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 10:17am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63

Quoted from leitskev
Hey Rick

I won't argue your points on that guy's film. You are probably correct on all of them, at least as far as the likelihood of his being successful with it anyway. Though I have to profess ignorance of the subject. I really don't have a sense of what the DVD market would be for indie films like that.

Think of one of your favorite films of the last few years. Are you telling me that if we just add 4 or 5 scenes with a bottle of coke somewhere in the background you will no longer watch it? That no one will? I'm not talking about big studio Hollywood films. I'm talking about an indie producer that just wants to finance his project, and works out a deal with coca cola. Isn't that the way to "deal with it"?

Also, there's a HUGE difference between worrying about something and taking a position. By your logic one should not vote. One vote doesn't make a difference, so why bother? One shouldn't be worrying over this, but they can and should take a position. The people who own the content of films have the resources collectively and individually to fight back. They create films like this because they want public support.  I don't think there's any question this theft effects a lot of people.


If we're just talking a few scenes, then really it already exists. Up In the Air was like 90 minute advert for American Express and numerous other companies. Really puts me off a film tbh. Product Placement is a way forwards though, I agree.

In terms of your position thing, I take the position that I don't care....which if you're desperate to put in a box, put me in the "pro-piracy" box, I suppose.

People regularly stream Manchester United games on a weekend. That's "illegal". I own a season ticket to Old Trafford, pay full watch for Sky HD, but the law says that matches can't be shown on a Saturday at 3PM, so any away match that United plays on those times...I am banned from watching.

I can go to Mozambique and find a hut where it's showing...it will be on in every country in the world, but I as a fully paid United fan can't watch it legally in my own country.

Farcical.

So people break the law because "pirates" provide a better service than the legal ones. A thoroughly stupid situation.

The first thing the "legal" companies need to do is make their service as good as the illegal ones. That would be a start.

I downloaded a film just yesterday. It's already been on Sky, which I pay for, so I've effectively already paid for it as far as I'm concerned. If I was to buy it I'd get it from Ebay or Amazon second hand, so no more money would go to the content creators in any case. Am I guilty about it? Not even a little bit.

As for your last point and the idea that it costs people a lot of money...I'm really not sure that is the case. Looking at the facts, Cinemas are bringing in record amounts of money, we've had Avatar becoming the biggest grossing film of all time. It also happened to be the most pirated film of the year as well.

Chris has already called it. There is an assumption that just because someone watches it illegally, that they would in fact PAY for it if they couldn't. They wouldn't.

Most people live a kind of hand to mouth existence whereby they spend all of their expendable income in any given week.

Taking away their ability to download films will not increase revenue, because they'll still have no money.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 30 - 99
Electric Dreamer
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 10:47am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Taking a long vacation from the holidays.

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
2740
Posts Per Day
0.55

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films

I think a film called Ink was released on torrents site...and built up quite a fanbase:

"As no big studio picked up the film for theatrical and home distribution, Double Edge Films pitched the movie directly to independent cinemas and also saw to the DVD, Blu-ray and online distribution themselves. DVD and Blu-ray copies of the movie are sold directly via the company's website starting from October 30, 2009 and are sold at retail stores starting November 10, 2009, as well as downloads at Video on demand stores.[4] According to TorrentFreak, a file sharing news site, Ink was downloaded via BitTorrent 400,000 times in a single week and exposed the film to a large audience, leading to higher DVD and Blu-ray sales in return.[5] Jamin and Kiowa Winans wrote in their newsletter that they had "embraced the piracy" and are "happy Ink is getting unprecedented exposure."[5] Around Christmas 2009 the film was also released on Hulu for free viewing.[6][7]"

Testify.

I'm one of those that saw Ink via download.
The production impressed me, so I supported it with a DVD purchase.
Rather give my money to the indie bloke anyway.

I'm the same with restaurants, I abhor chains.
99 times out of a 100, I give my cash to the small business restaurant.
Keep my money "local" and almost always get better food.

I accept piracy as a reality. Piracy to me is a tool.
If it goes away, so be it.
I can ignore it OR I can use it to gain a competitive edge in my business.
The more content I watch and process, the broader my knowledge base.
Use that data to improve my scripts, impress contacts, etc.
And all that helps me be a better writer and producer.

E.D.


LATEST NEWS

CineVita Films
is producing a short based on my new feature!

A list of my scripts can be found here.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 31 - 99
leitskev
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 11:14am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Everyone has pirated content at some point. Even Phil, I'm sure. If we watch a Youtube post that was unauthorized, we watched something pirated. But there are degrees. Everyone has lied at some point in their life, but we're not all liars.

And I have made clear I am not suggesting going after the end user. I am talking about going after big sites that make millions of stolen content.

If pirating prevents one film from getting the funding it needed to get made, then yes, it cost people jobs.

Piracy is not going to go away. But that doesn't mean it can't be reduced to where it is less likely to kill investment in a film, and thereby save jobs.

It is possible to both USE piracy and FIGHT it. And I don't think it's much of a contradiction. We watch Youtube, but we support legislation that allows content owners to fight the big pirate websites. There is a middle path.

I try to eat local as well. But, to be honest, there is a value in the chains. Local is not always better. It's a roll of the dice. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's awful. A Big Mac is the same all around the world. Except maybe in France, I don't know!

Is there a network TV program you watch? It's supported by commercials. You can maybe find it online, but right now, it's easier to just watch it on tv. But that is going to change. Soon. When everyone's TV is connected to the internet, and you can watch pirated programming, why watch something with commercials? And you don't think that will effect what is produced? And all the people employed in the process?

I guess it will mean, as we discussed, more of a merging between commercial and content. I just hope the purists and idealists understand that.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 32 - 99
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 11:48am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
I don't watch commercials as it is.

I have sky plus so just record anything that I want.

Pirating has been around forever and people said it would destroy VHS, computer games etc etc.

Instead we're seeing record returns.

It's probably far easier to argue the case that piracy is helping things by expanding the user base than it is to argue that it's actually costing anybody anything.

It's funny that they say that fat guy makes $300M from his website. In other words people are merely paying for his superior service to the one offered by these multi-national companies. They should sort themselves out first. Give people what they want, when they want it.

As I said before...the days of mass employment in the enterainment industry are almost certainly going to go. It's just the way it is and is all to do with technology and nothing to do with piracy at all.

The only reason people go on about piracy is that they want to remove net neutrality. The politicians hate the fact the people know they are all lying, the papers hate the fact that their lies are found out within seconds, the companies want to control everything you see, think and hear.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 33 - 99
leitskev
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 3:34pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
Rick, I have never been to that website, but it's not a matter of superior service. The issue is that he does not pay for the content. If I go to a pub that serves stolen liquor, maybe the prices are cheaper, but that's because they didn't pay for the liquor. Jeesh.

Pretty hard to argue that stealing something is generally a good thing. I realize that taking stuff from other people who earn it or create it is popular in certain circles. That entitlement mentality is threatening European civilization.

All that Western civ has achieved in the past few hundred years is built on the idea of property rights. In cultures and in parts of the world where those rights are not firm, poverty becomes entrenched and there is no escaping it. They are feverishly trying to establish property rights in many Africa nations as we speak, and it's not the oppressive "rich" doing it, but people who have finally realized that without property rights, there is limited commerce, limited private capital investment, and permanent poverty. Where these things are being successfully established everyday people are finally escaping poverty.

It's no different with intellectual property. If you don't protect it, it will become harder and harder to develop it.

And that's not saying this should be used as an excuse to hamper net neutrality. But common sense can still apply. There's no reason to allow these pirate sites to operate the way they do. There's a common sense way to protect Youtube and still go after pure piracy sites. Youtube cooperates with those who have been pirated and removes that content when requested to. Very reasonable. It's not perfect, but that's the way to go.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 34 - 99
Grandma Bear
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 3:47pm Report to Moderator
Administrator



Location
The Swamp...
Posts
7961
Posts Per Day
1.36
Just an interesting observation, seems like older people share their thoughts and the younger ones share theirs.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 35 - 99
Heretic
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 3:50pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts
2023
Posts Per Day
0.28

Quoted from leitskev

Let me ask you this, Rick and Chris: if a producer took a script, and paid for the film by selling advertising to Coke, and filled the story with coca cola scenes, how would you feel about that? Is the artistic purity of the story compromised? Films have always done this to a degree, but if that becomes the only way to make money, they might have to really turn films into commercials.


Haha.  It'd annoy me, but it's really a hard question to answer.  If Coca-Cola had any control over the content of the film, then yes, the film would be compromised.  If there's just a bunch of Coca-Cola everywhere in the film, I'd find it really hard to get into the film, because I find that distracting, but I don't think anyone's work would be compromised, per se.  Maybe the production designer's?

I believe the first ever product placement -- that is, the mentioning of a brand name in a film -- was for Lifesavers, in a Marx Brothers movie.  I can't remember which one though.
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 36 - 99
James McClung
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 4:17pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49

Quoted from Grandma Bear
I was thinking of Frozen In Time, but wasn't sure if you the writer only or part of the production. That was all.  


Gotcha. Indeed, I am only the writer. Being an American involved in a UK production puts me at something of a disadvantage. However I trust Dan and the people's he's brought on the project. Looking forward to see what he does with it.


Quoted from Scar Tissue Films
I don't watch commercials as it is.

I have sky plus so just record anything that I want.

Pirating has been around forever and people said it would destroy VHS, computer games etc etc.

Instead we're seeing record returns.

[quote=decadencefilms@37.com]It's probably far easier to argue the case that piracy is helping things by expanding the user base than it is to argue that it's actually costing anybody anything.


I actually think it's funny how these Hollywood PSA's try to divert attention away from the big stars and say the crew are the ones who get screwed over by piracy, only to have the electrician say he gets paid either way and doesn't see any backend. Mad LOLlerskates on that one.


Quoted from Scar Tissue Films
It's funny that they say that fat guy makes $300M from his website. In other words people are merely paying for his superior service to the one offered by these multi-national companies. They should sort themselves out first. Give people what they want, when they want it.


I've actually been thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea for studios to just flat out make their own streaming websites and charge to view films that are currently in theaters. It wouldn't dissuade the downloaders unwilling to pay for films (or just happy not to pay for them) but it would match the pirate streamers' accessibility and, if handled right, service. It also might level the playing field with the onDemand programs the studios think are hurting their business as well.

I mean when pirates brought music to the Internet, Apple followed up with iTunes. It didn't stop people from downloading music but it's not like nobody uses iTunes.

Just a thought. The studios probably won't do it anyway.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 37 - 99
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: December 9th, 2011, 6:22pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
Kev,

I know where you're coming from but as far as I'm concerned it just isn't a major problem, and I don't consider it stealing. The people that are downloading all this stuff just don't have the money. If they think the teenagers living at their parents house are going to actually spend thousands of dollars on the films, games and music they download...then they're mad.

Anti-piracy laws won't work btw. The raid on Pirate Bay (which was only set up using money from the Extreme Right Wing entrepeneur Carl Lundstrom) got so much publicity for them than they went from 2 to 12.5 users in a matter of months.

They'll just re-surface and go through the legal process. Then another will appear within hours. Can't be stopped.

James, I agree.

The illegal sites are MILES better than the legal ones.

They've got every film ever released on them just about.

They're organised so you can search by date, or by category. Have user comments and ratings (which are far better than IMDB because only fans of the genre would vote) and you can watch the films in low def/hi def or download them as is your choice.

Obscure films from places like Malaysia will be translated by English speaking people for the benefit of others.

On a scale I'd say they are a thousand times better than any official site I've seen.

We live in an instant world. People expect choice and they expect to have what they want instantly. If they hear about a film today and want to watch it..they want to watch it there and then...not wait 4 months for the DVD.

If Hollywood won't provide that desired service, someone else will.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Microsoft is the most pirated company, but is still bringing in billions and has a monopoly over computing. Cinemas are taking record money in times of the world's worst financial crisis. PC gaming is going through a massive resurgence and is going to get even bigger because of Cloud Computing.

The effect of piracy appears to be somewhere around nil.

This is how I intend to deal with it should it ever affect me:

http://new-media.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/2010/10/piracy-trumps-obscurity-again/


Simply start a dialogue with my fanbase.

This is an interesting perspective, which I largely agree with:

http://tim.oreilly.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/12/11/piracy.html

Provide a strong service, charge a fair price and engage with your fans/customers.

Rick.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 38 - 99
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: December 10th, 2011, 9:19am Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1522
Posts Per Day
0.31
Here's where I stand.

I have zero problem watching TV shows streamed online - especially if those eps are for a limited time and supported by the networks that they are on. If I can't afford to rent a film from a store I'll hit my local library. Perfectly free. Perfectly legal. I'll generally later buy a DVD if I like the film enough.

I'd rather see a film made for the big screenon the big screen.

Now, as for the indie films-- some short filmmakers use the net to showcase this work, be it YouTube, Vivmeo, whathave you. Some will even have sites of thier own. A handful of filmmakers/producers agree to a VOD platform. Some will even go strict internet--but these would be the Z graders. In my view, it is up to the filmmakers as to what content is seen. People should respect that. Sadly, some don't.

The problem is there is a handful who think they have a sense of entitlement; or they'll try to use some lousy excuse for justification. I've heard it all, and it's all bullshit.

As for myself, I'm getting a bit tired of being jerked around and jerked off. If I had a spec on the market, I would want to sell it. If that is my desire, there must be price to that sale. The lower the pricetag, the more participation I want from that film. An exec prod. credit let's say. But I - and my peer writers who read this - should be paid up front something. If the powers that be want us to walk away, give us a payout bribe to do that.

What is the pricetag for your time?

Back to piracy.

It's unethical, against the law. I agree that there is sad truth that the pirates are tough to crack down on.
Some laugh at what Hollywood and the law does, steps they take. But I'm ALL FOR IT - small dents are still small dents.
But I also think think that the general public will want -and do- go after legal means, such as the digital copies provided by the studios themselves, for example, or VOD should studios provide that service.

What can you do to combat piracy. You just read it.
Don't support it. Frown on those that do. Do things legally.



"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 39 - 99
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: December 10th, 2011, 10:07am Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1522
Posts Per Day
0.31

Quoted from James McClung


I've actually been thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea for studios to just flat out make their own streaming websites and charge to view films that are currently in theaters. It wouldn't dissuade the downloaders unwilling to pay for films (or just happy not to pay for them) but it would match the pirate streamers' accessibility and, if handled right, service. It also might level the playing field with the onDemand programs the studios think are hurting their business as well.


Just a thought. The studios probably won't do it anyway.


No, they wouldn't. With good reason. It would be a nice idea, but they would draw up the same conclusion I would: it would defeat the purpose in the long run.

I'm not talking about a flick that plays on SyFy or other TV movie (SyFy does, in fact, offer a feature TV flick from time to time) but major films.

Let's say Paramount decided to stream the upcoming Mission Impossible film a few days after it hit theatres. To go watch it, it would have to be already processed for DVD/Blu-Ray quality, Let's say a price of...ten dollars per person/viewing. You would have to watch it then and there. You cannot rewind or skip ahead. You cannot pause the film, and if you could, it starts a timer of ten minutes. After the ten minutes is up, your bathroom break should be done by then. The stream will continue after the timer is up or until you unpause. The time used in the ten minutes does not reset. You cannot close the window. Doing so loses stream and the right to watch that stream, unless you pay another ten. You Tube capture is diabled. Make sure your laptop is charged up. If you lose the juice/overheat that's your risk. The stream will not work on IE, but Firefox, let's say.
(this is due to media like Real Player)

An average joe would think it over and say, that sounds fair. I could pop my own popcorn, eat pizza and drink booze while watching Ghost Protocol. I could watch this in my PJ's and my bare feet if I wanted. And fair and square! I paid for it! Neat stuff!

Now the downside.

As with any other thing designed for luxury and good, there's going to be an populace of assholes who whine, bitch and want entitlement. They will pay the ten, but they will find a way to make a copy. If the film is good, they now have (at least) a DVD quality for ten dollars that they could watch again anytime they want or make extra copies to share for nothing or 11dollars a pop. (Yes, there has to be at least one hustle among the assholes) - that's up to ten/twenty dollars in savings off a store ticket DVD/BR when said film comes out on DVD/BR six months later. And you have it now.

In short, someone out there is going to thumb thier nose at a studio's compromise, and taint the point of the concept. That's a reality. Studios already let folks "test drive" a film by giving out spolier clips, trailers and footage. The cry-babies will still pout. Those who do things legally, respect laws, respect the wishes of those selling goods get raped.


"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 40 - 99
CoopBazinga
Posted: December 10th, 2011, 1:21pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
Perth, Australia
Posts
1175
Posts Per Day
0.26
Just a quick point as I have watched the video that was posted and I understand piracy is a issue, no doubt about it.

It is so hard to find a balance, independent film needs DVD sales and of course as a working man myself I know people need the jobs but society has changed nowadays.

I download, I’d admit it from TV shows to films and I don’t feel guilty about it. Why? Because I can’t with a young family afford to watch every  single movie at the cinema and all the cable or sky television. I personally love watching movies at the cinema , that will never change and most all the films I want to see (next year, Dark Knight Rises for example) I want to watch at the cinema.  It is the best way to see movies IMO!

I just can’t justify paying over top prices all the time, it’s amazing how much it is to get into a movie. I remember paying so much less in the past, in fact i still have the ticket from 15 years or so ago.

What I’m trying to say is while I understand some are struggling; let’s not forget that a lot of overpaid actors/actresses are taking a lot of the money too. It could be shared about alot easier, certain actors/acctresses are paid so much , let’s be fair.

I am not saying that all productions are the same, I understand there is alot of low budget, independent movies. Piracy is just now a part d the ever growing internet.

You hear about a movie nowadays and the budget is 15 million, 5 million goes the main actor/actress, 9.99 million to the budget and then the rest shared between the rest. Now that’s scandalous but acceptable because it's Hollywood.

Just my thoughts and i don't know nearly as much as the everyone on here. Too much red wine I think. Have a good one

Steve
Logged
Private Message Reply: 41 - 99
Electric Dreamer
Posted: December 10th, 2011, 1:39pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Taking a long vacation from the holidays.

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
2740
Posts Per Day
0.55
Here's a great breaking story about filmmakers using torrent sites.

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2011/12/event-zero-to-hit-sydney-in-2012.php

Piracy sites got them a distribution deal and commissioned for a new web series.
Sounds like those set grunts will get plenty of work form this story.

Always love to see innovative filmmakers get rewarded.

E.D.


LATEST NEWS

CineVita Films
is producing a short based on my new feature!

A list of my scripts can be found here.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 42 - 99
dogglebe
Posted: December 10th, 2011, 1:48pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from CoopBazinga
Because I can’t with a young family afford to watch every  single movie at the cinema and all the cable or sky television. I personally love watching movies at the cinema , that will never change and most all the films I want to see (next year, Dark Knight Rises for example) I want to watch at the cinema.  It is the best way to see movies IMO!


I love lobster, but I can't afford to eat it regularly.  That doesn't mean I'm going to steal it from a fish store or from a local fisherman.  Your freebie is costing somebody money.


Phil
Logged
e-mail Reply: 43 - 99
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: December 10th, 2011, 2:11pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63

Quoted from dogglebe


I love lobster, but I can't afford to eat it regularly.  That doesn't mean I'm going to steal it from a fish store or from a local fisherman.  Your freebie is costing somebody money.


Phil


The difference is no-one actually takes the lobster.

It would be like using the Star Trek Replicator to copy the lobster.

I can see that some people are upset by it, but if we look at Darren's example above about renting the film from the library...where is the economic difference between that and clicking a link in your own home? No money is going to go to the content makers in either case.

It's hard to see any particular moral dilemma.

Like Kev said before, there are clearly degrees. Someone such as myself goes regularly to the cinema, regularly buys DVDs (usually when they are cheap and often second hand tbf) and spends money to enter film festivals and pays people to make films, and I pay for Cable.

I couldn't spend any more money on films or the film industry even if I wanted to.

If I was to download ten thousand films a day, the net loss to the industry from my actions would be zero....because I wouldn't be spending any more money on films regardless.

People do not have infinite money. The choice isn't between paying for something or not, more often it's between watching one thing for free, or doing something else for free.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 44 - 99
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    General Chat  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006