Targeting the bootleggers, great news!

[Freya Black]

Look guys this is quite simple.

 

It's called copyright for a reason. It's about rights, and infringing peoples rights.

Copyrights holders were given special rights in order to protect their work from being copied without any reimbursement to the creator.

 

The Statute of Anne (1710) created here in the UK actually starts off by saying:

 

"Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families"

 

 

It was created to protect the authors because people liked having books basically and they wanted to have more of them and more high quality books but without any protection, the printers and booksellers etc were just freely making copies of the books and selling them which was perfectly legal at the time.

 

So if someone copies someones DVD and puts it all over the internet they are infringing someones rights as an author.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Also worth noting is the fact that giant blockbuster event movies are much more important in a world with internet piracy. The movie needs to be a must see event that people will rush out to see in the cinema rather than waiting for it to appear on the torrent sites.

Same with 3D. It's all part of the tentpole event cinema model.

 

Of course this is not a suitable model for indie movies which are a bit stuffed in that respect.

 

Freya

[Guest]

Downloaders however, who aren't also sharing the files, should be simply charged the manufacturers retail msrp of what they downloaded. That seems like a perfectly reasonable "penalty". Along with perhaps state tax in the area they're living.

 

Nobody would suggest charging someone $5000 for stealing a DVD at the mall. So why put someone who's probably already broke in debt for downloading a movie online? The punishment should be relative to the infraction.

 

Keep in mind there are huge costs involved in tracking down and prosecuting the thieves. So charging them what they would of paid if they bought a store copy is totally impractical. The copyright holder usually has to fight a lengthly court battle with the ISP just to get a list of the thieves to begin with, and that costs a lot of money.

 

Also, I want to remove the myth that only poor people on food stamps download movies. That is not always the case, not by a long shot. Nor should poor people be exempt from the law, simply because they are poor. One might be able to make the argument that stealing a loaf of bread because you are hungry is justification to a degree. But how do you justify the need to steal a movie? Watching a movie is hardly a necessity like food and shelter.

 

There's simply no way to justify and argue in favour of intellectual property theft via the internet.

 

How people on a website dedicated to filmmaking can argue in favour of it boggles the mind. I have an idea, those in favour of the theft of movies via the internet can work on film sets for free. Seems only fair to me.

 

R,

[Guest]

Same with music. Why are we paying a dollar a track as if it's a CD when there's no CD to create and ship any longer. There's no real world physical cost to the distribution and the consumer never sees any of that savings. This is true of ebooks as well.

 

I see, and what do you say to the person who spent three years of their life writing that ebook? The person who needs the revenue from that ebook to pay their bills and live.

 

You think they should write a book and give it away for free?

 

R,

[Michael LaVoie]

 

Keep in mind there are huge costs involved in tracking down and prosecuting the thieves. So charging them what they would of paid if they bought a store copy is totally impractical. The copyright holder usually has to fight a lengthly court battle with the ISP just to get a list of the thieves to begin with, and that costs a lot of money.

 

 

R,

That's a very good point and one I wouldn't argue. I just know plenty of musicians who are all for copyright protection of their work but who are torn by this argument because they would never want someone to lose their home or have their wages garnished simply cause they wanted to hear their music.

[Michael LaVoie]

 

I see, and what do you say to the person who spent three years of their life writing that ebook? The person who needs the revenue from that ebook to pay their bills and live.

 

You think they should write a book and give it away for free?

 

R,

I don't think anything should be given away for free. Not at all. Digital content however should be priced with the elimination of the hard costs associated with the actual physical book, CD, DVD whatever. Most of the time it is. Sometimes however it's the same and that's where there's an issue.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Michael LaVoie

[Guest]

I don't think anything should be given away for free. Not at all. Digital content however should be priced with the elimination of the hard costs associated with the actual physical book, CD, DVD whatever. Most of the time it is. Sometimes however it's the same and that's where there's an issue.

 

Ok now at last we are getting to points with validity behind them. You are quite correct that the producer would not have the same costs involved delivering a movie on a DVD in the store, vs via iTunes for a kid to watch on his iPad.

 

R,

[Mark Dunn]

 

 

I get that it's frustrating to see one's work pirated - I write a lot these days and I see my stuff duplicated all over the damn place, on blogs and dubious website - but I don't see that as a loss of revenue as much as just an impoliteness.

 

P

It's not 'impolite'- it's an infringement of rights for which you might expect to be paid, and of course doing nothing about it says something about the value you put on your work.

If my photographs are used without a licence, I don't write it off as a discourtesy. They're using something I charge for without paying so they get an opportunity to pay up. If they don't take it, I take them to court, and we have a very simple and economical process for that now. Calling it 'theft' concentrates the mind. It might technically be something different, but it's not much different.

[Michael LaVoie]

Radiohead did release their work for free. In Rainbows was available on their website in HQ to download free of charge before it was available for sale in stores. It was still their best selling album to date. Just throwing it out there that this idea that once something is available for free, it's death to the revenue stream can be wrong. It can go the other way.

[Brian Drysdale]

The costs in making a movie are a lot higher than those involved in making a record. There can be financing costs (interest charges) and various other factors involved in the investment that put pressure on making a return as quickly as possible. Also bear in mind that not all the box office goes to the investors, the exhibitors take a high percentage, together with other people in the chain.

[Michael LaVoie]

The costs in making a movie are a lot higher than those involved in making a record. There can be financing costs (interest charges) and various other factors involved in the investment that put pressure on making a return as quickly as possible. Also bear in mind that not all the box office goes to the investors, the exhibitors take a high percentage, together with other people in the chain.

All valid points. Totally understand. With the Radiohead In Rainbows example, I was just trying to echo a point I heard Moby make once that people will pay for content that they like. Even when it's available for free.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Michael LaVoie

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Sure people may pay for the content the like-- but they also probably won't. And, if you want to go down that route, put it up on vimeo with a tip jar or something similar.

When it comes to copyright; if you are downloading it, you are stealing it. The punishment, however, when and if caught, should be commensurate with one's ability to pay-- or else what is the point?

If you are, say, a poor person with very little income, and you download Frozen to show your kid, fine, maybe a $500 fine-- something manageable. If you're someone downloading enmasse to burn and sell on the corner, then get a much bigger fine.

 

And it's not as if access to these movies is difficult-- especially in the age of netflix, hulu, redbox, and the local library. Hell even in the days past you have blockbuster.

[Phil Rhodes]

And then you argue in favour of filmmakers giving away their work to the internet thieves for FREE!

 

No, I didn't. I said exactly the opposite, quite specifically.

 

 

 

You've never made and sold anything

 

Yes, I have. I said exactly so, quite specifically.

 

 

Your political will for me to have made or not made a particular statement doesn't mean it actually happened. Pay attention!

 

 

 

Are you saying items like software have zero value

 

Actually in certain types of economic theory, yes; it can be considered to have zero intrinsic value (also sometimes called fundamental value) in isolation from the user's opinion of its usefulness. Of course that's not really the operative point in terms of a business operating on intellectual property as an asset, but it is core to the discussion we're having here.

 

How exactly do you intend to make a living as a filmmaker if you are going to give your work away?

 

Crowdfunding?

 

P

[Guest]

Yes, I have. I said exactly so, quite specifically.

 

Can I get the IMDB link on that?

 

R,

[Guest]

Crowdfunding?

 

P

 

Oh brilliant, every project in the future will be financed with crowd funding and given away for free?

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm not sure it's right for every project, but I don't see why it shouldn't become fairly normal. You?

 

P

[Kieran Scannell]

I really don't understand people who work and make a living in this industry downloading films for free! I am laughed at by many of my colleagues when I say " don't poop where you eat" Mainly be cause I'm a small player. Which is fine! If thats how want it to be but I would just say this, someone wrote that film and someone else paid for it to be produced and a Cinematographer shot it with a crew who worked many hours to get it right. There is no way I'm not going pay to see it! Which ever universe you live in you're stealing from other people who worked hard to produce it and depriving them of there income! Now before you all start I am a socialist! And I understand that the big bucks don't go to the crew but that doesn't excuse downloading their work for free.

[Michael LaVoie]

Adrian mentioned libraries right next to Hulu, Netflix. Libraries are interesting to the discussion. I have a library system in my area that's interconnected by town and I can call up online almost anything on DVD and have the film shipped to my local library. If they don't have it, they'll order it. That's a one time purchase that hundreds if not thousands of library users will get to exploit for free from that point on. Most of the films aren't even bought. They're donated.

 

It's different in principle of course to bit torrent software, but practically speaking it's not much different for someone who's looking to view a film for free. A one time purchase or donation leading to many user experiences resulting in zero profit to the content creator except for that one time purchase by the library or consumer. Why are we not going after libraries or the people that donate to them?

 

Most people have a strong appreciation for the services of their local library. Will this respect still be there if all the content is digitized? Or will it turn into bitter resentment? It throws a wrench into the debate for sure. Getting a film, CD or book from my library is okay because I have to get in my car or on the subway to get the disk or book rather than sit on my couch and enter my library card number and download it. Either way it still means no money to the production company or publishing house.

 

So how do we protect content creators in the future? Another great quote from Moby is "Trying to monetize digital content is like building a hotel on quicksand"

 

Again, I'm not defending people who rip and upload or distribute copyrighted work. Not at all. Just mentioning that public libraries, if they were digital, would pose a serious question to the problem of how to protect content creators.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Michael LaVoie

[Keith Walters]

People like you and Keith have zero skin in the game. You've never made and sold anything so naturally you take the, who gives a toss approach.

 

 

 

Well that's not actually correct, but Phil and I are more interested in accepting reality as it is, not how we would desperately want it to be.

In any event, I somehow don't see any of your movies pulling in half-billion dollar box revenues, but producers of movies that do, seem to be making bugger-all headway combating piracy, however you define it. So, what? You're gonna show them how it's done are you?

 

The unpleasant reality is this:

A. You haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything about it.

B. Ranting and raving like this is only going to change your public persona from:

"Hard working Can-do Canadian Producer of family movies" to:

"Two-bit lawyer-wielding Canuk prick" :rolleyes:

C. Most of the general public don't give a rat's ass about supposed "intellectual property theft"

 

Are you trying to outdo Jim Jannard in the popularity stakes? You're actually starting to sound like him. I always suspected- nah! Couldn't be ... :lol:

 

Walk away, Richard.

 

OK, OK so you know how to get financing, arrange talent, write scripts, source equipment and crew, arrange catering, load, light, frame, pull focus, direct, yell: “Cut!” “Tale 1!, Take 2!” etc, colour correct, edit, source music, write subtitles, arrange opening and closing credits, arrange distribution, insurance etc etc.

 

That’s about 10% of the battle squared away.

 

Unless you have the integrity of a half-digested sandgroper, the moral compass of a decomposing Adele Penguin, the ethical principles of an incontinent Hyena with advanced leprosy, and are 1010% ready, willing and able to be a bottom-dwelling ass-kissing quadruple-penetration corporate whore who takes everything from 7-11 Card to Amex Nigeria, I’m very much afraid there’s no place for you in the Film production business.

 

Nice guys don’t just finish last; they’re lucky if they finish at all….

 

It’s not your fault, Richard, you’re just a product of your environment. It’s probably something to do with having a Queen instead of a president…

[Guest]

So, what? You're gonna show them how it's done are you?

 

Yes.

 

R,

[Mark Kenfield]

I think the sooner we see a fast, convenient and easy streaming service that allows people to 'rent' (i.e. stream) movies they're interested in for some small fee (for arguments sake, let's say $1 - because at that level, no one questions the cost) the sooner things will improve.

 

Yes there are services out there at the moment, but they're not universal enough, and they aren't all easy to access (here in Australia for example, options are very limited).

There are a great many films, probably the majority, that most people have NO interest in buying, even if they are interested in seeing the film. If a digital download is something like $7 to buy and $1 to rent, then you get to a level at which people aren't going to bother going to the effort of pirating - they click a button, their credit card gets charged a small fee, and they have instant access to high-quality content on-demand. That ease and convenience is a big selling point.

 

But offering low-cost in search of high-volume has got to be the way forward IMO - just look at the 'App' market... it's clearly the model of the future for digital distribution.

 

The market for content is massive these days - bigger than it's ever been. If we can offer a no-brainer way to get it in people's hands (and a cheap 'rental' option is probably the way to do that) then it could revolutionise revenue streams for filmed content.

[Phil Rhodes]

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

A single dollar may be too low a fee for recent or upscale titles, but in principle this sounds like just the right way to go. I think it will soon be shown that this was a massive missed opportunity for several years.

 

The objection is that it will facilitate piracy.

 

It will.

 

However, I suspect it'll make so much money that the losses to piracy will pale into insignificance. It's already easy to pirate films. It can hardly get much easier.

 

P

[Will Barber]

I used to be able to rent a VHS from a local store for 99 cents every 24 hours. I don't see why a company distributing digital downloads would have to charge any more. Redbox does it. Why shouldn't a digital company with conceivably less overhead be able to distribute low cost rentals?

 

And I know someone has to pay to make the film, but back in the day it wasn't just about cashing in on the success of the film. I'm aware of the world we live in, so really all I can speak about is my ideal, which is that someday all art and information will be free for people to consume, and the people that create that content will be able to do it as they please without the restriction of economics. Imagine if just once, a studio took the $100million they were going to blow on a big budget feature, and they found 100 promising films from younger filmmakers and gave them each $1 million. Don't you think that would be immensely liberating and fuel the creation of some great new content? Sometimes I just don't get it. You can waste millions on a box office bomb, but you can't take a risk on someone who's asking for less than 1/10th of the money and has new ideas...

[Guest]

Well Phil and Mark we already have such distribution systems with iTunes and Netflix. I find it hard to believe that someone can't afford $8.00 a month for Netflix. For the $8.00 you can watch all the movies you want. The US selection is outstanding. Canada lags behind but it's getting better. Point is that there is little to zero excuse for any American to pirate content when they have so much available via such cheap avenues.

 

R,

[Guest]

Imagine if just once, a studio took the $100million they were going to blow on a big budget feature, and they found 100 promising films from younger filmmakers and gave them each $1 million. Don't you think that would be immensely liberating and fuel the creation of some great new content? Sometimes I just don't get it. You can waste millions on a box office bomb, but you can't take a risk on someone who's asking for less than 1/10th of the money and has new ideas...

 

A studio would not spend $5, 000.00 on a "promising" young filmmaker. Or even $1, 000.00.

 

R,