I came across this today and thought I'd post it here since I think it affects us too. Wether you're a screenwriter or filmmaker. Some people here are making their own independent films and others have their scripts being made into indie films with hopes to get paid once the film is released.

Pia,

Good link. The basic message is sound.
But there are plenty of other reasons why the industry is suffering too.  
I had no idea the "watch the movie streaming now" sites looked so legit.
And the advertisers probably aren't researching the sites.
So, you have reputable ads lending credibility to these movie streams.
No wonder so many folks think that the stuff is on the up and up.

E.D.

Sorry, Pia, but shouldn't we get over piracy already? I don't think it's going anywhere. We're in the middle of an information/media revolution, where things like books and CDs are practically in death throes, and all the studios have done to combat it is try to censor the Internet and produce sobby PSA's like this one that make utterly vague calls to action like "join the fight." What does that even mean? I hope they don't expect us to get behind those shitty bills of theirs that will never pass anyway.

And as screenwriters and filmmakers, what are we supposed to do about piracy? Write our senators? I think the best we can do is support the films that we want to see and not rip other filmmakers off. Other than that, you can either cry and be a martyr or put on your big boy/girl pants and realize filmmaking involves risk.

And honestly, if you're just a screenwriter and waiting for back end to get paid, you signed a bad contract and deserve to be ripped off. Always get money up front.

As someone who has had his work stolen on several occasions, James, I think we have to fight to protect our work.  Writing to our representatives may seem silly and cliche,m but that is all that we have.  Most contracts nowadays include points on the back end; that's the way the industry is.  Few have the money to pay everyone up front.  Pirated films is part of the reason.

I've lost money in legal fees to protect my work.  It's not fun.


Phil

So writing senators to pass bills that repeal net neutrality is the best chance we've got to fight piracy? Aside from spending legal fees to get your work back when indeed it does get stolen?

...

I swear, being a screenwriter is the worst job in the world that anyone could want to have. I get more jaded by the day.

I'm aware we can't stop bootlegging (people who go to the theaters and record) but how about ripping from DVDs? Can't they not hire programmers to stop that?

Also, those links that claim to have a movie before it's out in theaters or in theaters are kind of shady. I believe those links are meant to lure you in and then rob your identity. Unless you download and see for yourself that it's a movie then you can say you've had your work stolen.

But the biggest problem is ripping so get programmers to stop that.

Gabe

Now that information is digitized, there's no way to ever fully stop content theft. But if they can find ways to shut down the big perpetrators, that should actually help. If they don't, it's going to really get bad as it will soon be the norm for people to get all of their movies over the internet. It sounds like the problem is sites that are operating internationally. There should be ways to deal with that, and it really has little or nothing to do with freedom of the internet, especially if they go after the hosts, not the viewers.

I honestly feel like the studios should just do a better job at protecting their shit and taking measures to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands in the first place. That's probably easier said than done but I think they should consider it regardless.

Or beat the pirates at their own game. A few years ago, a band I like leaked their own album with maybe one or two minutes of the first song intact and then the rest recorded over with them talking to each other in pirate voices. Filmmakers might think of doing something similar, especially the independent ones.

Studios did this all the time with VHS.  They made the tapes so they couldn't be copied.  Then the pirates would get around it and the studios would come up with another copy guard.  The pirates got around it.  And so on and so on and so on.

My work was actually stolen from this site.  Two shorts were produced without my consent and another found its way on some asshole's site with his name attached to it.


Phil

Not sure how many of you watched the whole video, but I was amazed to see how many people this affects. Especially independent filmmakers who has investors and see their films go online for free the same day as they appear on DVD or some other distribution. Curious how you feel about that James since you are an independent filmmaker (I think).

Hi Pia, I just watched this and here's what I think.

I understand this problem and more than that, I understand its root cause, but I don't want to lay down any heavies on that right now. What I do want to say is:

Our world has transformed and is transforming so very rapidly, I don't think there's a single person on this planet that can keep up individually anymore. More and more, we are going to be forced to turn to each other and ask, "What the Hell's going on?!!!" This is all predestined for a reason. We will come to realize that every soul on this planet has value and is connected to every other soul. Our world is more and more an integral place where geographic boundaries no longer matter.

We cannot get away from the fact that we are dependent upon each other and we need to wake up together, each of us step up to the proverbial plate and make the change.

No matter what goes on around us, we can all have it in our minds that we are going to "give" to the best of our ability. WE HAVE TO BE THE CHANGE WE WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD. Politicians cannot help us. They are tied and bound by large business interests. And we, are tied to those same businesses that we like to sometimes hate because we depend on them for sustenance of some kind or another.

I believe that if you give of yourself, no matter what, the universe will give back unconditionally. Maybe not today or tomorrow or next week. Maybe next lifetime, but it will happen.

So:

I sincerely hope that people will continue with their sharing and with their creative efforts and not let this scare them away. Do what you do. And I will try and provide as much support getting the word out as I can. You are what's important; not the dollar bill. The value is in you, your service, your time, care and commitment to what you believe in.

Here's a video I will share here. I'm learning to write it out on big sheets of white paper in Hebrew and will be using it to teach English. (Go figure, huh?) I have a Chinese friend who I'm tutoring English as a Second Language (ESL) and I'll be sharing it with her. In sharing, I touch on all kinds of stative verbs that are hard to show by any typical means of action. We also use electronic translators.

So far, my methods are very unconventional, but they seem to be working. When she learned I was teaching "multi-dimensionally" it appeared to me she just never wanted to bring "the notebook" back anymore. (Conventional notebook for ESL).   "I'll just learn from you" she said. But I'm learning from her.  

Anyways, the first part of the song goes "Yachad lev el lev, niftach venereh, taor shabashemyim. And the nearest I can translate is this:

Together, heart to heart, we'll open and look to the light in the sky

Together, heart to heart, we'll open with hope for love.

Yachad means together.  

I think piracy is awesome.  The point of art is for it to be seen and piracy allows more people to see more things.  People that complain about losing money to piracy might wanna keep in mind that they're producing work which has no practical value.  Art is awesome and all, but expecting to be able to make a ton of money off it, or even a living, is pretty ridiculous in the big scheme of things.  In theory, piracy should best serve to hurt the oppressive studio system and enable wider distribution and interest for smaller productions.

That said, I don't think piracy has as significant an impact as is often suggested.  I think people often download films they wouldn't otherwise spend money on anyway, and I don't think that downloading decreases the amount of money they spend on other films.  People have a finite amount of money to spend, so each pirated film can't be counted as a straight loss.  On the flip side, free downloads increase exposure and function as advertising.  I seem to recall that Hollywood had its biggest year ever in 2009, despite piracy being significantly on the rise up to and through that year.  

I understand your thoughts Sandra and Chris...sort of.  You Chris have an indie film almost finished, I believe. How would you feel if it was readily available online for free before you could get any return on your investment in the film whether you paid for the production yourself or you had investors? I watched this vid and I felt really bad for those indie filmmakers who got nothing out of their hard work, time, money and investors money. Eventually someone has to get a paycheck to pay their own bills. No?

Are you serious, Heretic?  The independent film maker depends on people paying to see his film so he can make more.  He's not looking for the exposure that torrents provide; it doesn't pay the bills.

Let me know when you put your life savings down on a film you make, okay?


Phil

Hey guys,

I always love to see the different views on a subject.

Sorry if I was long in my post above, but what I'm trying to say is probably best served by example:

I recently read a book "free" from the library entitled "Have a Little Faith" by Mitch Albom. I highly recommend it!!! But I will buy this book many times over and give it as gifts. It's that good!!! I believe in "supporting stuff"!!! Even if it's only half good or a quarter good. It's the effort; not always the outcome. Like a child who serves you burnt toast and you praise them. Why? Because they thought enough to try and serve something really special. And you eat that burnt toast and actually it tastes good!!!

Another example and please go out and buy this book if you can afford and desire it:

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

I sincerely think that you will not be disappointed. If you can't afford it, then try your local library. If they don't have it, then request it.

What am I trying to say?

I'm saying that we need to support what we appreciate. We need to spend money!!! Keep everything flowing and moving!!! It's not the dollar bill, but the appreciation of the people that work in all kinds of fields and areas. It doesn't matter what. We need everyone!!! That's what I'm saying. I can't live without you. Period. I would be dead. Everyone else is my lifeline. They sustain me. It's really true with everyone.

So:

Yes, there might be some people that try and "steal" something and enjoy it privately, but that will NOT LAST. Eventually, their conscience will get the better of them and they will wind up giving back a gazillion fold. It will happen. It's the laws of physics and nature. That's it.

In the meantime, I hope to be able to share and pass along the books and scripts that I regard as of high value and importance. While I'm plugging:

I want to again support Henrik who is so very diligent and outstanding. I admire him. I admire his work. Definitely, he's an individual who is passing it on.

Sorry to be so long.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Yes, there might be some people that try and "steal" something and enjoy it privately, but that will NOT LAST. Eventually, their conscience will get the better of them and they will wind up giving back a gazillion fold. It will happen. It's the laws of physics and nature. That's it.

Sandra, you're sweet and we love you, but this is a pretty retarded thing you just said.  These pirates feel justified in what they do.  Some will argue that the studios make enough money; others will say that the studio wouldn't be getting the money anyway.  It doesn't matter.  They're stealing and they just don't care.

And, before anyone brings it up, I don't have any software in my computer that I don't legally own.  Bootleg software is stealing, also.


Phil

Hey Pia,

As I said, I'm not convinced that torrents of Truth would have a significant effect on its returns.  The kind of people likely to be interested in a low-budget arthouse indie horror flick are, I suspect, the kind of people willing to pay.  I think most people, really, are willing to pay for something if it's good.  A lot of musicians make significant money by offering their music free online with optional donations.  We've looked at this approach for Truth.  And if it's not good, then why should people pay for it?

In the video you posted, there's nothing in Bruce Leddy's story explicitly linking piracy to the film's financial failure; the connection is entirely implied.  Taking a quick scan over the IMDb page, it probably failed because it doesn't look interesting and people don't like it.  And as much dramatic music as they play in the video, it's not like it was the end of this guy's life.  He's been working steadily since his movie, just like he was before it.

Hey Phil,

Yessir I am serious.  Expecting film to pay the bills is a major risk.  Most people, studio and indie, make bullshit films, and whether or not they do get paid for it, they shouldn't expect to.  

Putting your life savings down on anything is a gamble.  I put as much money as I could and hundreds of unpaid hours into our current film and I'm a lot more concerned that somebody see it than that somebody pay for it.  I've got a job.  I go to school.  I'm not gonna keel over dead if I don't get paid.  But I'll sure feel silly if nobody sees the film I put so much work into.  

Quoted from Heretic Yessir I am serious.  Expecting film to pay the bills is a major risk.  Most people, studio and indie, make bullshit films, and whether or not they do get paid for it, they shouldn't expect to.   Putting your life savings down on anything is a gamble.  I put as much money as I could and hundreds of unpaid hours into our current film and I'm a lot more concerned that somebody see it than that somebody pay for it.  I've got a job.  I go to school.  I'm not gonna keel over dead if I don't get paid.  But I'll sure feel silly if nobody sees the film I put so much work into.

I understand this, but I also remember me being in meetings negotiating people investing $3M+ to invest in our reality show. It's a BIG responsibility and if in the end you just have to shrug and tell your investors, sorry there will be no return on your investment because it's already online by some asshole making $300M a year showing it online for free.

And Phil, I respect intellectual copyright too. Every program I have, I have paid for. I feel VERY strongly that people that create something out of nothing should be protected. Inventors are what has moved us forward. Regardless of the product they invent, they need to be rewarded and not ripped off.

Hey Pia,

I can definitely agree about responsibility.  Again, though, I'm not convinced that piracy is gonna be the difference between red and black.  I checked out a few scholarly articles on piracy studies and in my limited perusal there seems to be no definite consensus on the impact of piracy.  Studies that did show negative impacts of piracy reported relatively small losses compared to the films' respective budgets.  

Anyway, if it were the case that piracy, directly and solely, resulted in a massive loss on the part of your investors, that would be a risk that your investors had chosen to take.  I don't think investors are too worried about piracy.  There are a lot of films being made.  Not that I don't think it's any concern at all, but I don't think that it's first and foremost on investor's minds, because I don't think anyone has shown it has a significant impact.

I have two scripts optioned.  Payment for both (if produced) is something up front and points in the back end.  Who's going to pay me for those who watch them from torrents?  You?


Phil

I hate when threads I commented on proliferate while I'm away. Too much to respond to.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Not sure how many of you watched the whole video, but I was amazed to see how many people this affects. Especially independent filmmakers who has investors and see their films go online for free the same day as they appear on DVD or some other distribution. Curious how you feel about that James since you are an independent filmmaker (I think).

"(I think.)" ...this is strange. I'm disconcerted by the way this phrase was thrown in there. To clarify, I'm involved in independent film productions in my community, yes, but as of yet, I'm still working on my official directorial view.

Anyway, piracy doesn't phase me. For now, it's kinda inevitable. So why cry about it? Especially when it affects everyone in the industry and you are powerless to do anything about it. Either deal with it or take extraneous, painstaking measures to protect your work that probably won't work out anyway.

Also, I don't expect any of the scripts I've had produced to turn significant profits, with or without piracy. Even if one of my films got pirated, I have my doubts as to how many people would actually see the pirated version. I have my doubts as to how many people actually saw the pirated version of the Weekend Wedding. I haven't even heard of it.

If you're nobody, why would anyone pick your pipsqueak indie film out of the bunch when they have so many Hollywood blockbusters, Oscar baiters and Cannes darlings to choose from? And if someone actually does, you should be glad a single soul even took the time to watch it.

That's the way I feel. To put it bluntly, piracy sucks and if you're making films now, you're going to have to deal with it on one level or another so it's useless crying about it.

The people who should be prosecuted are those who make screeners available for copying. I mean, if you get a DVD for 'awards consideration only' and suddenly that has been distributed across the net, well . . .

As Kevin pointed out, the task of counteracting piracy is very tough. Believe me, I know, from a computer programming and engineering point of view, i have tried to come up with some solutions.

Here are some of the problems:

If you add tracibility information or IDs to a media, like a DVD, they can be blurred or edited out

If give the DVD a 'one play only' or code to enter so it can be played, the video can be captured by software or the code can be cracked.

If you include encryption on the DVD or player, again the video can be capture when displayed on a screen or computer.

I think they can block bootlegging at the cinema by screening for electronic devices on entry or sending out a sync or overlay signal that makes the video captured fuzzy or unwatchable.

Quoted from James McClung If you're nobody, why would anyone pick your pipsqueak indie film out of the bunch when they have so many Hollywood blockbusters, Oscar baiters and Cannes darlings to choose from? And if someone actually does, you should be glad a single soul even took the time to watch it.

Why would the torrents load them on their sites?  Maybe your pipsqueak indie film is the sleeper everyone's been looking for.

Whether or not you get a crack at a second movie depends on how much your first one made.  I don't think anyone considers how much your first film is pirated in this decision.


Phil

There's an old Chinese saying that goes something like:

If you have a problem and there's something you can do about it, there's no point worrying.

If you have a problem and there's nothing you can do about it, there's no point worrying.

So in short there's no point worrying about it.


Ultimately piracy is here to stay. There's a lot of very clever people out there, and they will get round any protection you put in place.

You have to deal with it...maybe even embrace it.

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]"


That's something you can do...put your own high quality download out there first and ask for donations, or advertise your website. At least then you get the benefit of the exposure.

You can also use your film as a marketing scheme in of itself. Build a fanbase and maybe they'll buy some merchandise..perhaps your biggest fan has never paid to see a single one of your films, but he's bought the signed poster (I have my very nice Bad Penguin poster right here!), a framed still of the film, the mug and the T-short with your hero's catchphrase on it.

Maybe give the people who buy the film some kind of experience the pirates don't get. Whether that's simply some amazing art on the DVD cover, or  voucher for something, whatever. Make people feel good for buying it.

Basically, you have to evolve with the times.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films You can also use your film as a marketing scheme in of itself. Build a fanbase and maybe they'll buy some merchandise..perhaps your biggest fan has never paid to see a single one of your films, but he's bought the signed poster (I have my very nice Bad Penguin poster right here!), a framed still of the film, the mug and the T-shirt with your hero's catchphrase on it.

Another satisfied customer!

The problem with merchandising is that it's also pirated/counterfeited.  Bill Watterson discontinued his comic strip Calvin and Hobbs because he was tired of seeing his characters on products he didn't endorse.  Despite the fact that the strip was discontinued six years ago, you can still see the characters on shirts and the rear windshield of cars (pissing on car logos).


Phil

I can't think of any good reason not to be able to prosecute websites that are deliberately and openly pirating and making money off it selling advertising. I don't see how having laws and international treaties allowing such prosecution will limit internet freedom.

Would that completely stop pirating? No, of course not. There will always be software similar to the torrents and other share systems out there. The hackers will always find their stuff for free. But it can't be made so easy that everyone can find pirated stuff and use it without much effort, and so people use it on legitimate looking websites and don't even know they are using stolen content.

I am skeptical that this has had much impact on the film industry yet. But that's soon to change when everyone's TV is connected to the internet and you can watch pirated movies as easy as channel surfing.

I am also skeptical of this idea of people donating to films they appreciated. Come on, be real. That's fine for a super low budget flick, but a film is NEVER going to make significant money that way...and film investors know that.

Smart producers will find a way to utilize what's going on with this technology. I saw an interview with Danny Devito where they had just finished making a feature film designed to be showed on Youtube. All the profit was to come from advertising on that site. No idea how it did, but that's thinking outside the box and is to be applauded.

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.

The problem of pirating does not allow a one answer solution. You can't stop content theft, but you might be able to reduce it. Educating the public is just one part of that battle. And producers are also wise to deal creatively with a changing world by adapting.

People steal content because it has value. But the fact that it has value also means those that own the content will always be able to fight back. The war will never end, but you can choose a side.

Quoted from James McClung "(I think.)" ...this is strange. I'm disconcerted by the way this phrase was thrown in there. To clarify, I'm involved in independent film productions in my community, yes, but as of yet, I'm still working on my official directorial view.

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

Will this piracy take the film industry the same path it did with the music industry?...

I just hate when people steal anything, but I guess that's what the world is like today. People see something, want it and then take it...  

Just to be clear Kev, I'm not suggesting that you base your entire economic strategy on getting donations, just that you accept that some people are going to download the film, so you well as well ask them using your own copy, rather than allowing someone else to upload your film.

Some people are not going to pay to watch your film.

If you stop them from downloading it, they won't buy it, they'll simply do something else...like watch Youtube.

The only thing to take from that video is an analysis of where the Wedding Weekend Director went wrong.

He followed some archaic distribution model that is dead. An hour spent googling distribution would have told him that.

He took too much of a risk with his own money and with other peoples. This is a guy with industry connections who couldn't get traditional funding for a comedy? This instantly suggests it's a dud.

There are no faces recognisable to a world wide audience...so they may as well have been local actors doing it for the reel. The poster and title are so boring that even having watched this video about it, I can't even build up the inclination to watch it for free, just out of curiosity.

There's no marketing hook. It's mix genre. It sounds dated and looks trite and middle class. What is the demographic for this film? Middle America, I suppose, people who work, have the white picketed fence you hear about...the kind of people who come home from a hard day and watch whatever's on the telly...and don't go rooting around trying to find obscure dramedys.

He should have made the film for ZERO, with friends.

The traditional system where it takes three people to make a cup of tea, and every assistant has ten assistants is going.

Very soon there will a 4K Raw cam on the market for a few thousand. The future of most filmmaking will be one guy with a cam, and maybe one sound guy. Look at Monsters...one guy with a prosumer cam.

Only the tentpole pics will be able to have enormous crews.

Napster won. The coming generations will have grown up never paying for music or films.

You either have to deal with that reality, or do something different. It's not worth spending even a minute worrying about it. You'll drive yourself mad for no reason.

As for the coke thing. No-one would watch it...and more people would watch independent films that didn't take the piss out of you.

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.

Quoted from dogglebe Another satisfied customer! The problem with merchandising is that it's also pirated/counterfeited.  Bill Watterson discontinued his comic strip Calvin and Hobbs because he was tired of seeing his characters on products he didn't endorse.  Despite the fact that the strip was discontinued six years ago, you can still see the characters on shirts and the rear windshield of cars (pissing on car logos). Phil

If he genuinely stopped making his cartoons because of that, it seems a very strange attitude to me.

The more popular something is, the more it will be copied, but at the same time the market for the official/real product will increase.

One of my ambitions in film is to create a shared Universe environment where different people can contribute, and I'd have it on a creative commons licence so anyone could use the characters, and even sell products based on it for just a small licence fee.

I'm with Sandra that if you allow people to be involved, give them stuff etc, they'll give back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just an interesting observation, seems like older people share their thoughts and the younger ones share theirs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley 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.

You could read such a thing as an admittance of defeat on the part of the studios. But who cares about the long run? Piracy will win. Bringing the theater to the Internet would at least level the playing field some. There's always going to be people who want more than they're offered, no matter what. But don't tell me studios offering the ability to watch their films at home while they're still in theaters wouldn't appeal to some people.

Good arguments here, though I'll confess to only skimming through this thread. I think I'm most closely aligned with Rick's comments.

I think the studios and major indies will be okay, as will the screenwriters who can, once they make a name for themselves, ply their trade either on spec or for hire.

And the guerilla filmmaker is not getting pirated, and the A-list talent does not have to worry either because their payday is usually front-loaded...

I see the real victim of piracy as the B to D list actor. The film industry just about considers the domestic market a throwaway these days - theatrical release is never a certainty, and DVD sales are off, and filmmakers know that they have to go the digital route sooner and sooner in the cycle, thereby reducing profits.

So they turn to the foreign market which, from what I read, is just as if not more lucrative for filmmakers than the domestic.

How does this hurt the B-D list talent? Because they'll never appear in anything other than low or micro-budget guerilla stuff, regardless of their level of talent. You need a face or a name to sell the film overseas, and that's why you see the same 100 or so actors in every movie, studio or indie, big budget or small...

A very interesting perspective AJR.

From all of our points of view, and those B to D actors...the reality is that we need to make more noise about ourselves.

Piracy might even be a way of doing that as Brett's example above shows.

Some B to D actors become cult names. I'm thinking of the likes of Tony Todd...people who are famous for certain roles/genres and get recognised and get work forever on a certain level.

There's a list of the most pirated films of last year knocking around. One of them was Hurt Locker. The Production company is apparently filing lawsuits trying to get money back.

The thing is this: Hurt Locker was a war film. It came out when the public was sick to death of war and so didn't do very well at the BO. It came to prominence because of the Oscars.

At that point people downloaded it out of curiosity. They haven't stolen anything in real terms, because their decision NOT to pay had already been made....they didn't fancy seeing it at the cinema.

IMO the line of attack from the Prodcution Company's point of view should have been to hire Bigelow for another film....leverage the goodwill of Hurt Locker and get a new film out there and maybe some of the people who downloaded the Hurt Locker and enjoyed it would buy that.

Have to say, reading this thread (and debating the issue with Phil) has changed my mind on this issue.

For the last year or so, I've been a regular user of a few torrent sites - catching up on classic films that I never got around to seeing.  I consider myself a libertarian politically, and fully believe in the sanctity of property rights.  I've justified myself up until now via two internal arguments (which I still contend are valid complaints, at least on some level):

1) With films, people buy a product sight unseen.  You've got commercials claiming (usually falsely) that a film is terrific - watch it, and it'll be the best thing you've seen all year!  Alternatively, you've got critic reviews, which are often off-base.  It's a situation that dangerously approaches fraud, IMHO.  Yet, I dare anyone to go to a movie theater, or pay for a downloaded rental film, and then successfully argue for their money back because the film sucked.  IE: it's buyer beware, at the expense of the consumer.

2) I've researched Itunes, Netflix, Amazon Prime, hoping that they would offer reasonably priced legal alternatives to the torrents.  In each and every case, the selections were woefully less adequate than the illegal sites.  If I paid for a Netflix (or another) service, I wouldn't be getting the selection that I needed to make it worth my while.

BUT - having reviewed the argument - and debated back and forth on the matter, I have to admit...that downloading illegal content is simply inherently wrong.

Having worked so hard with the Bad Penguin project really drives it home.  The amount of work that's gone into the script, pre-production design and marketing...not to mention the tons of work ahead in the future as the project continues.  That's a gamble that any independent film maker takes.  But if it pays off...the artist DESERVES to reap the benefits.  Yes, it's true that a majority of people who download a film probably wouldn't have paid for it.  But equally true - unless they're willing to, they do not have a RIGHT to view it.  And some people probably *would* have paid for the  download, if the alternative wasn't available.  Even if it's not much, that's still stealing from the artists' mouth.  

I'm also not arguing that there aren't surely better business models to be developed than classic distribution, which may eventually alleviate a portion of the piracy problem.  But using an intellectual property without permission from the owner - that's just flat out wrong (even if money isn't actually involved.)  Refraining from piracy may be a symbolic gesture.  But it's honest.

Now Netflix - dammit, PLEASE improve your streaming selection!!

"If I had to pay for it, I wouldn't see it so the studio wouldn't get the money," is bullshit.  With a venue to see them for free, you are seeing a lot of movies you wouldn't pay to say, but you are also seeing some that you would if you had to pay.

There's probably people out there that catch 150+ movies a year illegally because they can.  And because they justify it with this defense.  If they couldn't do it from the torrents, I'm willing to bet they'd catch a few movies a year in the theater.  Or on cable.  Or, as Darren pointed out, the library.


Phil

My first foray into this clusterfuck:

For some people, that's true. But, I have this crazy notion in my head that I wouldn't go see a movie in the theater. Instead, I'd pay for HBO and Starz at about $25/month (give or take) and be saving money watching movies at home than paying to see three or four movies in the theater where the studios force the theater owners to overcharge by a hefty margin.

In that case, Phil, cable and the library are different than going to the theater. The library is funded by taxes (us) and cable is paid for directly by us. You cannot compare those two to going to the theater. Cable's a little easier to compare but you're not paying for a movie directly. You're paying for the advertising as cable was free, back in the day.

Along similar lines, just found this article regarding copyright law and used bookstores.  Similar issues here, and simliar problems.  Handled differently, from country to country.  As with films, the issues are deeper than they might first appear....  If you REALLY think about it, isn't it wrong that an artist or writer doesn't get royalties on used books and DVDS, too?

Telread

It's amazing how much the human mind is capable or rationalization. This thread is beautiful evidence. The extraordinary and even sometimes effective lengths people will go to create justifications for a behavior they benefit from and therefore don't want to think of as wrong is impressive.

When I ran my bar, I downloaded music illegally. It was easier to get, to be honest. At the time, Itunes was limited, and there was no one stop place to get songs customers were demanding. Plus, often a song was popular for months before it was available to be purchased, especially remixes. So I had shareware like Napster. Someone asked for a song, if I didn't have it, I could get it in minutes. For free.

But I refuse to justify that action. It was theft. The artists were not rewarded for their work. Future artists received less compensation because their material had less value.

In the end, the industry adjusted, and learned to make legal downloads more effective and therefore more profitable. But to justify my theft with this argument is quite simply a rationalization. That's like saying I rob banks so they can build better safes.

Most of us have used torrents or watched unlicensed material on Youtube. I don't think it means we're going to hell. Not for that anyway. But the fact that we do it doesn't make it right, and certainly should not be the basis for protecting pirate websites that are making millions off others work.

I am a libertarian myself. I am a huge believer in freedom and entrepreneurship. I love the way the internet contributes to that. As anyone who knows my politics will attest, I am suspicious of government power and regulations. But having a free internet does not require justifying or rationalizing intellectual property theft.

Leitskev,

I don't think anybody's going to dispute that downloading a movie (or any media) is stealing. What they're disputing is the effect it has, if I've read through this thread properly.

What I'll dispute is it doesn't matter if piracy is right or wrong. It is wrong. But it's inevitable. And it always wins. You only lose working yourself up about it.

It's fair to say a free internet shouldn't justify/rationalize piracy. But I've yet to see any anti-piracy advocates come up with a solution that lives up to that. The people who want to end piracy either can't come up with solutions or have solutions that are actually worse than piracy.

James -

Granted, dealing with piracy issues are like trying to plug a hole in a sieve - a multi-headed problem, that won't ever be completely stopped. Doesn't mean that as a society and individuals that we can't:

* Cease to download things ourselves, just on general principle (and refuse to give moral/verbal sanction to friends and acquaintances who continue to do so.)  Not saying berate anybody - but don't pretend it's "okay", either...

* Lobby for international treaties so that we *can* go after the big torrent sites that do most of the damage.

* Continue to work toward new technology that will make piracy more difficult (understanding that it will never disappear 100%)

* Work with the legitimate distribution channels to see if they can't come up with a business model that does provide the full-fledged services that make illegal torrents so appealing at times...

IMHO.  

I'm more worried about the power of the major international media empires than I am about a few people downloading stuff...something that no-one has ever managed to prove has had an actual effect, as this thread has witnessed.

The people have decided.

There's been plenty of instances where I go to see a movie because of piracy.
I've checked out some cam torrents of a feature while it was in theaters.
A title I was unsure if I wanted to go to a theater and shell out $20 to see.
If I liked the first act, I'd shut if off, go to the cinema and pay to see it.

Piracy is illegal, but while it's here, I'd be a fool not to use it.
I can expand my knowledge base at little cost to me.
I'm sure other budding amateurs living hand to mouth do the same thing.

E.D.

Quoted from wonkavite James - Granted, dealing with piracy issues are like trying to plug a hole in a sieve - a multi-headed problem, that won't ever be completely stopped. Doesn't mean that as a society and individuals that we can't: * Cease to download things ourselves, just on general principle (and refuse to give moral/verbal sanction to friends and acquaintances who continue to do so.)  Not saying berate anybody - but don't pretend it's "okay", either...

I don't download films. I'm a firm believer in supporting good films (and not supporting bad films but that's got nothing to do with piracy).

I have on occasion watched feature films on YouTube but only because I could find no other means to watch them. I've probably only done this four or five times.

As for friends using piracy to watch films, I don't condone it but I wouldn't say anything to them about it. It's not my business and frankly, it'd be akin to telling someone their meat eating or pot smoking is wrong.

Besides, none of my friends pirate films either. Most of us are avid DVD enthusiasts.

Quoted from wonkavite * Lobby for international treaties so that we *can* go after the big torrent sites that do most of the damage. * Continue to work toward new technology that will make piracy more difficult (understanding that it will never disappear 100%) * Work with the legitimate distribution channels to see if they can't come up with a business model that does provide the full-fledged services that make illegal torrents so appealing at times... IMHO.

That's fair, I suppose. I personally don't care enough to get involved but it seems like there's plenty of people who do.

Like Rick though, I'm concerned as to how the powers that be go about combating piracy. They've yet to come up with any solutions that aren't utterly threatening and repugnant.

Pretty soon we'll get to see the effect of piracy on Kick Ass 2.

The first film made $100M at the BO...not a huge sum for such an impacting film.

It was also the second most pirated film of the year behind Avatar.

This is because the demographic for the film...teenage boys...are the ones most likely to download content.

Why? Because that age are the most involved in film, music, computer games etc. And they also have the least expendable income.

Now you can argue that those people have stolen momey from the filmmakers.

However it's become a huge cult hit, and piracy has played its part in that.

I reckon the sequel will bring in considerably more at the BO because numerous of those kids who enjoyed the first film for free will go with their friends to watch it at the Cinema.

I totally hear what Janet is saying about the work that goes into Bad Penguin and completley empathise.

We've seen on this thread already, however, that piracy is able to save independent films from obscurity....look at the example of Ink.

Hypothetically, piracy may be a boon to a film like Bad Penguin. Major distributors might be worried that it's too dark for children, or some other spurious reason, you only get a small deal, they don't market it much, no major TV interviews or press interviews etc etc. The majors own all the rights, so it languishes in relative obscurity (as I say this is purely hypothetical!!!!).

Then some young kid downloads it illegally, tells everyone on 4Chan about this wicked new animation about this Penguin with a gun who hates Christmas, tells everyone that it's well better than all that Disney crap. Others watch it. Suddenly it has a sizeable following talking about it...some of whom seek it out and buy it.

Then you have an established user base for Bad Penguin Hits Hawaii, or whatever.

The point being, piracy is here to stay...whatever your moral/political views on it, there's nothing you can do about it...except use it to your advantage as a free marketing platform.

The Swiss Government recently did research into the problem and concluded that the heavy handed measures necessary to tackle piracy would cost so much and be so brutal that action would actually harm the industry and the economy far more than just leaving it as it is.

I'm curious;

Given the choice, would each of you rather have a small number of people see your movie and pay for it, or a much larger number see it but a slightly smaller number pay for it?

Since I'm wide awake in the middle of the night for some odd reason.  Here's an article that might add to the discussion.  

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/top-10-pirated-movies-time/

Since movies began in the 1800's they have been pirated. It's not anything new. The industry has had  constant battles against it but piracy still flourishes...so does the movie industry if Avatar is any example.  

LOL at Kickass and RocknRolla being on that list. How delightfully random.

Quoted from James McClung As for friends using piracy to watch films, I don't condone it but I wouldn't say anything to them about it. It's not my business and frankly, it'd be akin to telling someone their meat eating or pot smoking is wrong.

James - completely understand the analogy you're making here - and I'd never stand on a friend's doorstep and condemn them re: illegal downloads. But frankly, I think it's more akin to standing in a convenience store, and allowing your friend to shoplift in front of you.  In that case...yeah...I would say something!  

Rick: Thx for the nod to Bad Penguin.    And I'm sure you understand, as a director.  You and your investors front the money for your films, and you take the risk - it's your hard work that makes it possible.  It's blatantly wrong for someone to be able to lift the film, and provide it for free to the masses..reaping benefits of it just because they can...  (Not saying it's 100% preventable, or that there aren't separate issues with the major studios that are important to address as well.)  But the least I can do (and will do from now on) is not being yet another person downloading illegal films.  It's the least I can do - and support any efforts to see it stopped, as much as possible.

Quoted from wonkavite and support any efforts to see it stopped, as much as possible.

But that's the point... it isn't going to stop.   If you make treaties with a county to stop piracy there, the pirates are just going to go to another country where it isn't illegal.  I may be a bit cynical here, but getting the whole world to enforce anti-piracy legislation is just not going to be possible - especially not in Asia.

Did you know by the way that part of the reason Hollywood is where it is is because of piracy?   Edison had a lock and patent on film in the early 1900s, the MPPC was controlling the industry in the states.  It was east coast based.  In order to distance themselves from the enforcers of those patent fees, filmmakers moved to the other coast.  Also, if they were caught - they were very close to Mexico and could easily flee there.  

The way for the movie industry to combat piracy is not legislation.  It's making films that people want to see in theatres and/or making their films accessible online for a reasonable price.    

No reason we can't pursue both avenues.  (If lawmakers made a point of giving up enforcing justifiable laws because the crime can't fully be stopped, that pretty much runs the gamut - theft, physical domestic abuse in many cases, any number of other criminal acts.  And...even if there's no chance of the cops actually catching the (*&*($ who breaks into my car, doesn't mean they shouldn't continue to try!)

Quoted from wonkavite No reason we can't pursue both avenues.  (If lawmakers made a point of giving up enforcing justifiable laws because the crime can't fully be stopped, that pretty much runs the gamut - theft, physical domestic abuse in many cases, any number of other criminal acts.  And...even if there's no chance of the cops actually catching the (*&*($ who breaks into my car, doesn't mean they shouldn't continue to try!)

But the cops aren't going to chase your car thieves over four continents at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars either - I'm sure the taxpayers would be really happy with you if you made them foot the bill for that.

M -

I doubt it would cost that much, if mutual agreements were arranged between countries.  

Also, that's a dangerous precedent to send - if prosecution is too costly, a criminal can expect to get away without even an attempt at apprehension...!  (And - even given the expenses involved, I'd much rather see the funds spent on something legitimate like that, rather than the drug war, other 'social' vices, and/or wars that we shouldn't have gotten involved in to begin with...)  IMHO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....gIQA9TK6nO_blog.html

A good article. Sounds like there are two bills floating around Congress. One is draconian and would inhibit free speech(naturally lobbied for by corrupt former Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut); the other seems to be a common sense approach and is endorsed by Google and Facebook.

I don't think there should be a question about whether property theft is right or wrong, or whether copyrighted material should be protected. The question is how far you can go without affecting freedom of speech or freedom of the internet. Citizens should be vigilant about freedom of speech, while being open to common sense solutions which don't impact freedom.

Google are pirates.

http://contentownership.org/

Once the industry gets its act in order, I'll worry about the little guy.

If the government wanted to, it could pass law to block such websites.  It wouldn't stop the torrents but it would slow them down it help the fimmakers.

Anyone who says that this would violate someone's freedom of speech gets a frikkin' beating.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe If the government wanted to, it could pass law to block such websites.  It wouldn't stop the torrents but it would slow them down it help the fimmakers. Anyone who says that this would violate someone's freedom of speech gets a frikkin' beating. Phil

The govt already seizes and blocks such websites.  It hasn't made an impact.   Unfortunately the US can only do this for websites that are on its own soil.  It isn't going to be able to make laws for other countries - especially when it's against the economic interest of those countries.   And even if it wasn't, I don't think other countries are going to allow the US to determine what is legal or isn't within their borders.  Ain't going to happen.  Get over it.

There are ways to make it in the economic interests of those countries to play ball. All you have to do is take countries that don't cooperate and make it illegal for American banks to do business with that country. The same thing they are working for Iran because of nukes. Pretty sure Norway does not want to be frozen out of the financial system just so pirates can operate.

I am no defender of Google. I think they are intrusive...and it's run by Left wing fascists. I'm just saying Google supported the legislation, so it could not be something that's threatening them. And they own youtube, which is full of unlicensed stuff.

Quoted from leitskev There are ways to make it in the economic interests of those countries to play ball. All you have to do is take countries that don't cooperate and make it illegal for American banks to do business with that country. The same thing they are working for Iran because of nukes. Pretty sure Norway does not want to be frozen out of the financial system just so pirates can operate.

That's fine and then you lose the American dollar as a world currency - it's really close to happening already and the only holdout is the investment in American dollars in Asia (just the countries you'll have to be freezing out.)    

What are saying, the rest of the world wants to justify theft? I don't think so.

And you might want to think about who's investing in the dollar. People that are worried about the euro, which could collapse any minute. Others invest in the dollar because in the end it's the safest bet. Over time, that is always reinforced.  The United States government is more stable than any of the large players.

But that's off topic. The bottom line is that the world is global in orientation, and increasingly so. There are ways to stop blatant pirate sights. And it doesn't require infringing someone else's sovereignty. It simply requires making it in the financial interests of those countries to play ball.

Quoted from leitskev What are saying, the rest of the world wants to justify theft? I don't think so.

I'm not saying any such thing.

I'm saying you aren't going to stop it, just like you aren't going to stop things like prostitution.  It's human nature.  Humans will find a way to do it no matter how illegal you make it.


Passing laws has never worked..!  (period, period, exclamation point).  It's been tried many, many times.   It has never worked..!  Why waste your energy and money on something that doesn't work and won't work because it's never worked..!  

The best thing the movie industry can do is what it's always done for piracy - innovate.  
They should be finding ways to get people to go to the theatre and watch their movies.  That is precisely what they need to do.  And if they can't figure out a way to do that then they should be figuring out how to get those movies to people in their homes..!

That is how to combat piracy, make it something that has no demand.

[quote=mcornetto]

I'm not saying any such thing.

I'm saying you aren't going to stop it, just like you aren't going to stop things like prostitution.  It's human nature.  

Hello friends,

I'm sorry I'm jumping aboard without catching up on the thread as of recent, but Michael--

I just want to say that prostitution might not be a bad thing. I don't know, but there are rules and there are rules. For instance, if there were fifty men on an island and one woman, and they all desired her, would it be wrong for her to cater to their needs, fulfilling a need? Fulfilling a need for profit? And why? Because she might need their services as hunters? As providers of "something"? Like many children? And with varying genetic make-up? ...

Wow, sounds like a good premise for a movie.

But yes...

In any subject, we can always debate and find grey areas. We should strive to be fair and be good contributors and not "steal" in any case.

Sandra

Quoted from Heretic I'm curious; Given the choice, would each of you rather have a small number of people see your movie and pay for it, or a much larger number see it but a slightly smaller number pay for it?

Still curious about this.  If the majority of artists would answer the latter -- which certainly is not necessarily the case -- wouldn't it suggest that piracy is in fact supporting the artist?  There are, after all, other forms of support than money.

Chris, if I spent a bunch of my own money, which I planned on doing with Finders Keepers, and a million people watched it for free online and I didn't get one single penny for my hard work, I'd be bummed. I don't make films to make money, but for others to make money off my hard work and hard earned money would definitely not make me feel good.

Hope that answers your question.  

Michael...

Sure, we'll never stop piracy with laws.  We'll never stop rape, or child porn or murder.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to do everything possible to stop people who cause these things.  Prostitution, that's fine with me.  At least it's an honest business dealing....

Hey Pia,

I'd of course agree with you on that!  That's not the scenario I was wondering about though.  I don't think it's been the case, nor do I think it will be the case that a film is only pirated and never bought at all.  I was wondering about the particular scenario as I described it because that is what I think the actual effects of piracy are: many more see a film, a few less pay for it.

Why bother having patents or copyrights? Inventions get stolen, as does intellectual work. Always has, always will. Why bother having safes at banks? Banks get robbed, always have, always will.  You will never stop pirating. But you CAN limit its impact and damage. And yes, we do have to be vigilant to make sure the effort to stop pirating does not limit of freedoms. Not the freedom to steal, but freedom of speech. And we don't want to destroy places like youtube, or facebook, or simplyscripts just because users could post something stolen there. But common sense measures can be taken to reduce the impact of theft. And there's no reason certain little countries need to be allowed to operate as pirate bases. The pirates pay off the politicians in those countries? Ok, we make them pay a price in lost privileges within the financial system. They will shut the pirates down tomorrow.

Don't worry, the computer geeks and techno people will always be able to steal their stuff. But as long as most people can't, or it's too much trouble for them to, the work of others will still have market value.

Quoted from leitskev You will never stop pirating. But you CAN limit its impact and damage. And yes, we do have to be vigilant to make sure the effort to stop pirating does not limit of freedoms.

I don't think it has been established that it is actually causing any damage.  All I saw in that video was a guy who said people didn't come to the theatre to see his movie.  He blamed it on a pirated copy (which likely no one downloaded either - did he mention how many people downloaded it?).  Or someone saying I didn't get a job.  That must be because of pirates.    

People have been complaining about people not showing up at their movies or not getting entertainment jobs way before internet pirating.  There is no proof here that it is actually doing any harm.

The movie industry was singing its doom when television came out, then again when video tape was sold to homes, then again when DVDs came around.  What I see is a bunch of people that get set in their ways and when something new  comes along they claim it's ruining their industry.  That's exactly what I see.  They don't want to change to meet the new landscape but that's exactly what they need to do and will end up doing - just like the music industry.


  

Quoted from wonkavite Michael... Sure, we'll never stop piracy with laws.  We'll never stop rape, or child porn or murder.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to do everything possible to stop people who cause these things.  Prostitution, that's fine with me.  At least it's an honest business dealing....

It's already illegal.  What do you want to do, pass a law to make it twice as illegal?   That's really going to solve the issue.  

I don't understand why everyone keeps talking about the harm to filmmakers and the threat to the market value of films.  Overall Hollywood profits hit an all-time high in 2009 and remain extremely high.  Overall music industry revenues have gotten steadily higher since 2006.  The gaming industry has posted record-setting annual revenues every year since 2000.  This in the golden age of piracy, and continuing through the recession.  Piracy just has not had an appreciable effect on the industries that it's supposedly going to cripple.  There's no evidence that it has.  There's no evidence that it will.  There are only reasonable assertions for why it might, but there are also equally reasonable assertions for why it might not.  If people are going to continue talking about the dangers of piracy, they're gonna need to prove that they exist.

Quoted from The MPAA Website Does piracy really hurt the movie industry? We’re reminded every weekend how well the box office is doing. However, box office is just one aspect of our business. For years, home video has been a bigger piece. Our studios have relied heavily on the success of their films in the distribution chain after a film is released in the theater. We know that piracy is cutting into those profits, and when those profits are reduced, the studios have fewer dollars to invest in movies, and when there is less money to invest they make fewer movies and the diversity and variety of films we love become more limited. More importantly, if we’re making fewer movies, then fewer people will be able to make their living working on movies. We’ve also seen the impact of piracy on video stores — we’ve seen countless examples of video stores struggling to stay afloat because people are peddling DVDs of movies that are still in theatrical release right in front of these legitimate operations and stealing their business. It simply becomes a struggle to compete.

What a load of shit.

"We know that piracy is cutting into those profits..."  How?  Here's how they "know": a study by the GAO which determines total industry losses by assuming that every single download would have been a full-price purchase of that product: study.  As we've already discussed, to look at things that way is utterly moronic.  

"...when those profits are reduced, the studios have fewer dollars to invest in movies..."  But they aren't reduced.  They're not at all.  They're bigger each year.

"...they make fewer movies..."  Yeah, except they don't.  Other than Disney, who've been concentrating on tentpoles, everyone's been distributing roughly the same amount of movies since 1995 (with the obvious exception of companies that have gone under).

"More importantly, if we’re making fewer movies, then fewer people will be able to make their living working on movies."  Seems to make sense.  Except that the revenue being generated is massive, increasingly massive since the rise of piracy.  Actually, there should be more people than ever making movies.  And I'm sure there are.

"...we’ve seen countless examples of video stores struggling to stay afloat because people are peddling DVDs of movies..."  No...you've seen video stores struggling because of online distribution.  

If one flawed study and a bunch of flawed premises is the best the MPAA can come up with, I don't know why anyone thinks there's a problem at all.

M....

No need to pass more laws...  Just improve the tools for enforcement....  Arrange effective international agreements to prosecute those who infringe on intellectual property.  That's the least that should be done...for any crime.

And I repeat.  No way that's going to happen worldwide.  If there's a corner pirates can go to then they will.   And if there's a way to find them on the web then people will.  

The only way to solve this problem is to get rid of the demand.  If you are willing to do whatever you can to solve the problem, then why not work at an actual solution instead of just applying an expensive band-aid.  

Well, like I mentioned before - I'm in favor of a two pronged approach.  Prosecution of violators to the fullest extent possible.  And come up with legal solutions that might lessen demand.  So I guess we agree.

Quoted from mcornetto All I saw in that video was a guy who said people didn't come to the theatre to see his movie.  He blamed it on a pirated copy (which likely no one downloaded either - did he mention how many people downloaded it?).

I checked the torrent sites I visit, no sale.
Mr. Leddy's "The Wedding Weekend" never showed up on The Pirate Bay. Ever.

E.D.

Not to revive this thread (which proved to be controversial).  But here's proof that international cooperation can be used to cut down on internet piracy.  Clap, clap, clap.

I'm far more scared of the Government...particularly the US government.. than I am of pirates.

Beginning of the end for the free internet.

Worried about big governement...except when it comes to redistributing wealth in social schemes. I say that with respect, you know that!

I'm primarily a libertarian. I don't trust big government in general. I am skeptical of our ability to reshape other countries(Iraq, Afghanistan, anywhere in Africa, Greece), skeptical of social planning and meddling by fools with Ivy League degrees, and wary of people who want to manage global economies when they've never run a business and know nothing about how things work(White House).

So I am wary of government regulating the internet as well.

But that does not mean we can't find common sense ways to shut down blatantly criminal enterprises. It's a slippery slope, so we have to be careful. Life is full of slippery slopes, however. Sometimes they can't be avoided. Curious to see how it plays out. I doubt it will be the end of the free internet. Too much commerce is now dependent on the internet. I think I heard recently it's like 20% of total global economy.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I'm far more scared of the Government...particularly the US government.. than I am of pirates. Beginning of the end for the free internet.

When the NYPD first proposed putting cameras up on the streets on New York, people went crazy screaming, "They're taking away our right!  They're acting like nazis!  We'll all be thrown in jail!"

Some people like scaring us with worst case scenarios.  It's their bread and butter.

No one's been sent to the gulag yet.


Phil