Bootlegger Gets 33 mos in jail!

[George Ebersole]

No, I'm not a psychiatrist.

This is just one of series of similar threads.

Look up anything recently started Richard "de Forest" Boddington, and you'll see what I mean.

Well, I don't understand your position. It sounds more like a personal issue with another poster, and not so much the topic at hand.

[John Miguel King]

 

 

I think for the common man when they see Star-X in the headlines get Y-Millions of dollars for Film-Z, then that justifies for them in their minds that "piracy is okay because they're rich", ignoring the fact that it was selling the product that the commoner is stealing that allowed them to build that wealth.

An addendum to this. I might be wrong and my data old, but the fact that Denmark is the only country in the world where the law requires creative HODs, including cinematographers, to be named as copyright holders does somehow point towards a massive injustice in the whole system.

 

Thanks for understanding that my argument attempts to put the debate within the context of what's practical and beneficial to us, and not within right or wrong.

[Mark Dunn]

Well, I don't understand your position. It sounds more like a personal issue with another poster, and not so much the topic at hand.

It is.

[Mark Dunn]

 

In any case, there is a difference between "eating their food" and using some Star Trek type gadget to "duplicate their food".

 

One is theft, the other something unequivalent that people try to assert is theft....

'Theft' is a shorthand for something very similar.

If someone takes an image of mine without permission and uses it without paying, I'll call it 'infringement' if you like.

But I'll still pursue him for payment.

Alright, the image is readily reproducible and I'm not deprived of it so it is not technically theft. But if that reproduction is my source of income, why is it so different?

Edited August 30, 2014 by Mark Dunn

[George Ebersole]

An addendum to this. I might be wrong and my data old, but the fact that Denmark is the only country in the world where the law requires creative HODs, including cinematographers, to be named as copyright holders does somehow point towards a massive injustice in the whole system.

 

Thanks for understanding that my argument attempts to put the debate within the context of what's practical and beneficial to us, and not within right or wrong.

Well, if a person wants to get didactic about it, then you could say that murder really doesn't hurt anyone other than the killed party, because there is no immediate direct economic impact on that person. The spouse and offspring of the person killed could sue, but would it not be better if we could develop a system whereby people are killed and a fee is paid. Historically some societies came close to something like this.

 

But, the absurdity in that the previous example is that that is a matter of public safety, and what we're discussing here is more a matter of economic flow, and making sure that the person who created the work is adequate compensated.

 

In the end I think the film industry will come around. I think they're still counting on box office sales as the dominant factor in product distribution, because part of going to a film is to experience the film with other people; laugh, cry, ooh and ah at the images on the screen.

 

I think there digital distribution with new anti-image-piracy technology (say frames invisible to the naked eye, but that will register on a video camera and show up on playback when said image is taped) is the way to go. That way cases like this guy in the BBC article wouldn't be an issue, or he'd be even dumber than he reportedly is.

 

I can't recall if someone mentioned it here or on another BBS, but there's also corruption among studio employees. I remember a news' piece showing Closed Circuit security footage of employees (Warner or FOX) who were responsible for some phase of post-work on a film (Batman or some big title) just burning DVDs to take home and sell, or otherwise putting digital footage on portable media and walking out of the post facility or studio so they can upload it once they got home. That there could be a case of not paying the employees enough to steer them away from making extra dollars on the side, but it's also a matter of integrity too, and the film industry doesn't have a big reputation for integrity on certain levels.

 

I personally think the TV and theatrical distribution model is not suited for 21st and 22nd century media distribution, and needs to be reworked. Still, you shouldn't be pirating someone else's work in the first place. End of story.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

But if that reproduction is my source of income, why is it so different?

 

Because you aren't necessarily deprived of your source of income.

 

Piracy can be - and often is, I'm convinced - a victimless crime. Not every instance of piracy represents a lost sale. Probably very few do. That money that people think they've lost probably never existed. If the piracy hadn't taken place, they still wouldn't have got any money.

 

Now, of course, I say necessarily because sometimes an instance of piracy does represent a lost sale, but I suspect this is much more the case when websites and blogs use photos unlicensed, or when professional, profitmaking youtube channels rip off music, because some of those people are funded to pay for rights and the money does exist. I suspect, however, that it is vanishingly rare with regard to film piracy.

 

P

[George Ebersole]

 

Because you aren't necessarily deprived of your source of income.

 

Piracy can be - and often is, I'm convinced - a victimless crime. Not every instance of piracy represents a lost sale. Probably very few do. That money that people think they've lost probably never existed. If the piracy hadn't taken place, they still wouldn't have got any money.

 

Now, of course, I say necessarily because sometimes an instance of piracy does represent a lost sale, but I suspect this is much more the case when websites and blogs use photos unlicensed, or when professional, profitmaking youtube channels rip off music, because some of those people are funded to pay for rights and the money does exist. I suspect, however, that it is vanishingly rare with regard to film piracy.

 

P

 

I really don't understand that logic at all. If you created a work, and put that work up for sale or rent, and someone copied it without your consent and did likewise sell and/or rent it, then he is competing against you with your own product.

 

That, by definition, is denial of monetary compensation, unless he agreed to pay you a percentage of the take, or you just said it was okay.

[Guest]

Piracy can be - and often is, I'm convinced - a victimless crime. Not every instance of piracy represents a lost sale. Probably very few do. That money that people think they've lost probably never existed. If the piracy hadn't taken place, they still wouldn't have got any money.

 

I just gave you the very real example of how buyers at AFM will not buy a movie for DVD release in their territory because they know the piracy is so bad that they won't make any money. This also means that a lot of lower budgeted movies that were once being made are now no longer being made. This means a loss of revenue and job opportunities for young people trying to establish a movie career, from director all the way to PA.

 

So this is not a victimless crime at all.

 

Also, if this was a victimless crime, why did your government just toss one of your fellow citizens into jail for 33 mos?

 

R,

[Guest]

I don't know, I suspect not by making a complete idiot of yourself on a public forum.....

 

Agreed, you may follow your own advice and leave now.

 

R,

[Guest]

And when's this bloody movie of yours going to be released in Australia, Cecil B? No sign of it anywhere.

 

Looks like Sept 7th:

 

http://www.anchorbayent.com.au/Detail.aspx?ID=STZ1911

 

Shall I send you an autographed copy? I'm sure you will cherish it.

 

R,

[Michael LaVoie]

I don't know if anyone has heard of the Popcorn Time website/app system but it got a lot of press on some big new site for offering a netflix like streaming service of virtually any film, brand new or classic from your phone, computer or chromecast.

 

I was super impressed till I realized I can't actually subscribe to it. Cause it's free. Cause its not studio / network sponsored. It's all streaming bit torrent files. :angry:

 

This was both super depressing but also interesting. The designers behind this code were clearly sending a message to Hollywood to get it together and create something similar that truly provides viewers freedom to stream whatever they want whenever they want.

 

If there was a legit service like Popcorn Time I'd subscribe to that in a heartbeat. It combats piracy by making it effectively pointless. How it impacts the bottom line of DVD sales is a different argument but there maybe no method of resurrecting that. I would much rather stream something than buy a physical DVD. But I'd be happy to pay for the stream if it was in decent quality. Half the time Amazon on demand comes in horrible and in SD and Netflix has a terrible selection of new movies. So maybe a studio sponsored version of Popcorn Time would work. Just a thought.

[George Ebersole]

The thing is is that most of the major networks already stream their libraries. I don't think any of the majors do, other than Disney (via their official website, and allegedly they know have an official Youtube channel where you can pay for movies on demand). It may have to do with a prohibition against vertical monopolies (control of manufacture to consumer retail process), but allowing that might be the solution to combating piracy.

 

Even so, that doesn't combat DVD/Blu-ray says, nor justify theft of companies who are not as robust as Disney. to police their properties.

 

Again, Ricahrd's words echo my opinion. It has and will continue to eat away at money for new projects. And yeah, when I was first entering the industry back in the 80s, making a low budget horror film on 16mm was one of the ways to break in. But apparently now you can't do that anymore because there's no incentive for a distributor to buy your product, according to Richard.

 

If that's the case, then if you thought it was hard to break into film before, lack of funds and out of control piracy will make it impossible.

[Michael LaVoie]

Walk of Shame (15mill budget) was released simultaneously to theaters and Itunes. It did poor in theaters but it was #1 on Itunes for a while. The way Stephen Brill was talking in one interview, that seems to be the way things are heading for studios and their smaller films. Digital and theatrical together. But hey, Joss Whedon just put his last film In Your Eyes on Vimeo on Demand for streaming. So there's also that option. Anyone know the total revenue generated for that release? I know Vimeo lets you keep 90% of the profits as the filmmaker. I'd be curious to see if he got enough purchases on that film through Vimeo streaming to at least cover the cost of the film.

[George Ebersole]

 

Because you aren't necessarily deprived of your source of income.

 

Totally untrue if your livelihood is working on films. How do you say you're denied income if the sale of your product is deferred to a pirate version of what you made?

[John Miguel King]

Walk of Shame (15mill budget) was released simultaneously to theaters and Itunes. It did poor in theaters but it was #1 on Itunes for a while. The way Stephen Brill was talking in one interview, that seems to be the way things are heading for studios and their smaller films. Digital and theatrical together. But hey, Joss Whedon just put his last film In Your Eyes on Vimeo on Demand for streaming. So there's also that option. Anyone know the total revenue generated for that release? I know Vimeo lets you keep 90% of the profits as the filmmaker. I'd be curious to see if he got enough purchases on that film through Vimeo streaming to at least cover the cost of the film.

What I'm going to write goes against the way I like watching movies but...

 

IMAX is projected at 2K. A standard TV set is 1080p. It might just be that the whole theatrical release first, then the rest is a thing of the past. And on top of this we have 4k screens getting cheaper and cheaper.

 

I do think that watching a beautifully shot movie in a great cinema is what it's all about. But maybe it's another instance of an industry stuck in a certain rusty definition of itself.

[Guest]

I do think that watching a beautifully shot movie in a great cinema is what it's all about. But maybe it's another instance of an industry stuck in a certain rusty definition of itself.

 

Quite right, what is the practical need for theatres these days? There isn't one. Since TV came along there has been a way to distribute a motion picture without the need for one to physically go to a movie theatre. Prior to TV the only way to see a motion picture product was go to a theatre.

 

These days of course the options have expanded well beyond just TV with the advent of the internet.

 

It's uncertain if people will even see the value in the large screen and communal viewing experience in 50 years or less.

 

R,

[John E Clark]

 

Because you aren't necessarily deprived of your source of income.

 

Piracy can be - and often is, I'm convinced - a victimless crime. Not every instance of piracy represents a lost sale. Probably very few do. That money that people think they've lost probably never existed. If the piracy hadn't taken place, they still wouldn't have got any money.

 

Now, of course, I say necessarily because sometimes an instance of piracy does represent a lost sale, but I suspect this is much more the case when websites and blogs use photos unlicensed, or when professional, profitmaking youtube channels rip off music, because some of those people are funded to pay for rights and the money does exist. I suspect, however, that it is vanishingly rare with regard to film piracy.

 

P

 

I've said this elsewhere, so this should be no news to those who know me.

 

If content was cheap and available, the 'reason' for pirating would be greatly reduced. There may be some people who get a kick out of 'beating the system', but like underage drinking... after one becomes and adult 'sneaking in to th pub/club' loses its appeal for most.

 

I'm refering mostly to films that have passed through their theatrical release. So, it could be there would still be piracy of 'in theaters', but I suspect that if viewers were assured of a timely release of 'cheap' access... like Redbox, Netflix, etc.... hey, wait... those entities have not declared bankruptcy due to piracy... anyway, piracy would become a very minimal problem.

 

Then there's "Game of Thrones"... I for one would definitely pay for a independent-of-cable subscription for legitimate access as the show is broadcast, and have always bought the disks as they have come out.... I'm sure most other viewers would like the same who are not cable subscribers.

 

But there is another aspect of 'copyright' which affects filmmakers more than perhaps piracy... using say 'music' in a film.

 

Anyone who has gone though the 'sync rights' process knows this is a byzantine affair. Further, even if one has fully paid for sync rights, often the 'filters' will clamp down on 'your' work, until one goes through a process with the host site on the issue.

 

This 'system' has to change in some way, and I hope it is in a way that allows for more access by filmmakers to materials, at some 'reasonable' price.

 

But laud the apprehension and conviction of an in-theater copyist (hey he probably paid for a ticket at least... for 'Fast and Furious 6'...), and think this will make things better.

Edited August 30, 2014 by jeclark2006

[John E Clark]

 

Quite right, what is the practical need for theatres these days? There isn't one. Since TV came along there has been a way to distribute a motion picture without the need for one to physically go to a movie theatre. Prior to TV the only way to see a motion picture product was go to a theatre.

 

These days of course the options have expanded well beyond just TV with the advent of the internet.

 

It's uncertain if people will even see the value in the large screen and communal viewing experience in 50 years or less.

 

R,

 

Personally with the advent of digital distribution, I'm hoping for the growth of small chaples of the Eternal Cinema to crop up, rather than Mega Church Metroplexes...

Edited August 30, 2014 by jeclark2006

[John Miguel King]

 

Personally with the advent of digital distribution, I'm hoping for the growth of small chaples of the Eternal Cinema to crop up, rather than Mega Church Metroplexes...

Amen. Here in London we've one of those called the Hackney Rio. It might just be the one you're describing.

 

And it's actually doing pretty well!

[George Ebersole]

jeclark; I believe John and I already voiced that. I also think you need to use your full real name for this forum.

 

It'll be interesting to see what kind of distribution techs come to the fore in the next year or two.

[Guest]

For what it's worth as much as I oppose movie piracy, I think 33 mos in jail is a bit over the top.

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

Based on what the BBC says about that particular individual? I don't think so.

[Brian Drysdale]

Less doing it for a few mates down the pub, and more acting as an illegal distributer with 700,000 downloads. Less shoplifting a few coats from a shop, more lifting the entire warehouse.

[Keith Walters]

For what it's worth as much as I oppose movie piracy, I think 33 mos in jail is a bit over the top.

 

R,

Which has always been my point, Brainiac.

You want the public on your side, eschewing a culture of "individual piracy" (ie illegal downloads).

Crowing over some poor clueless prat who has been thrown in jail for nearly three years or doing something that thousands of others do with impunity is never going to achieve that. When have such draconian measures ever made a difference?

People routinely get lighter sentences for actually killing people or causing millions of dollars of real, measurable damage.

Anyway, we haven't heard the appeals process yet, so don't get too smug.

[Keith Walters]

Less doing it for a few mates down the pub, and more acting as an illegal distributer with 700,000 downloads. Less shoplifting a few coats from a shop, more lifting the entire warehouse.

This is a beautiful example of the "Linguistic treadmill".

Originally "theft" meant stealing a real, tangible object. The notion of "Copyright violation" was a separate (and later) offence, dealt with under different laws.

The re-labelling of "copyright violation" as "theft" is just a fantasy dreamed up by lawyers to try to jazz up public support for something they really couldn't give a rat's arse about....

The same way a person previously charged "Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" is now routinely branded (by the press anyway) as a "Pedophile" even if the person in question is only five minutes short of whatever the age of consent happens to be in the particular jurisdiction, or you're only five feet over the boundary of a state where it would be legal....