Bootlegger Gets 33 mos in jail!

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't know what you're doing, but I'm just comparing two victimless crimes.

[George Ebersole]

I wouldn't describe it as victimless. People put in a lot of hard work to make a film a reality. To have someone one pirate the thing as a cash cow strikes me as criminal.

 

As you say, if it had been for friends, well, technically illegal and a no-no, but strictly speaking no real dollars were lost. Therefore not a big crime. Sort of like tearing the tag off a mattress at a bedding store.

[Brian Drysdale]

Perhaps "victimless" would be better, since shoplifting has been described in those terms. There are others which also get termed in that way, like false insurance claims. In this particular case it was more industrial than domestic levels.

[Keith Walters]

I wouldn't describe it as victimless. People put in a lot of hard work to make a film a reality. To have someone one pirate the thing as a cash cow strikes me as criminal.

 

As you say, if it had been for friends, well, technically illegal and a no-no, but strictly speaking no real dollars were lost. Therefore not a big crime. Sort of like tearing the tag off a mattress at a bedding store.

A point which has been made many times before:

I can buy a copy of a DVD and then lend it to every person in my street, or even my whole suburb if I'm that gregarious, and every one of them can watch it for free, and perfectly legally. The distributor gets not one dime, apart from my purchase price.

But if I rip the disc to a flash drive and lend THAT to the same people, I'm committing a heinous crime.

What exactly is the difference?

Certainly in both cases the result is the same: X number of people probably now won't buy a copy of the movie, because by and large, most people only want to see a film once.

[Brian Drysdale]

In this particular case he seems to gave been selling copies or at least attempting to, quote: "Danks offered to sell copies". This is more like making copies of the film and then selling them, rather than lending a copy for friends etc to view for free or the cinema manager letting you in to watch the film for free.

[George Ebersole]

Mister Walters, I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the US when vinyl records were still being sold, the record stores charged a tax and a licensing fee, which supposedly covered your agreement to use the product as intended; self enjoyment and those you knew within whatever was designated a reasonable number of people (friends, family, maybe some neighbors).

 

It strikes me that this fee for use, or rather denial of it to the creator of the work and those who help the artist distribute their work, is criminal. But, it's not a matter of public safety, though still a violation of the law.

 

And as I've mentioned, continued stripping or denial of monetary return, which is part of the whole reason for making media a career and livlihood, without check, will just torpedo media industries altogether.

 

I don't know how you go about getting your gigs where you live, but every time you get behind an eyepiece of a camera, set up a light, flag, net, lay track, or whatever it is you specialize in, you're getting paid for that service and expertise. You expect that the producer has money because someone saw a profit in making that shoot you're working on.

 

If it no longer becomes profitable, then what are the rest of us going to do when there are no jobs left? Go back to retail?

[John E Clark]

If the Porn industry is any example, there is rampant piracy, and Chatsworth was still able to continue producing product. The biggest recent negative impact on the Porn industry in California is due to regluating 'condom' use, or similar.

Edited August 31, 2014 by jeclark2006

[Guest]

What does offend me the most out of this whole story is that the UK government and the US government only give a hoot about piracy when a big budget studio film is involved. If this guy ripped off a low budget indie movie with a cast of no-names the government would not of said boo. And a guy who just put 100K of his own money into an indie film can afford to lose that investment a lot less than a multi-national Hollywood movie studio.

The cops busted down the front door of the guy who stole some scenes from one of the new Star Wars movies before it came out. Again....movie being made by a billionaire so all of a sudden law enforcement cares about it.

So what's the message governments in the UK and the US are sending out here? Steal from the little guy and we'll do nothing. Steal from the big guys and you're going down....hard.

In Canada it's business as usual, the pirates can steal anything they want big or small and the RCMP has said they'll do nothing.

R,

[George Ebersole]

With all due respect, you don't know that. It made headlines because it was the new Star Wars film, but I would guess that there are other film makers who on occasion get the law to operate for them.

 

A lot of the time, from what I understand, the government agencies are trying to put a crimp in the mainline networks so they can shut down a good portion of whatever illegal operation they're going after. What they do is watch and wait for a time to strike so they can go after the entire network; from the money people, to manufacture, to distribution.

 

It's like busting up a drug cartel. You're trying to shut down organized criminals. They're not the mafia, but they have a kind of sophistication that requires a little more patience.

[Guest]

I'd like to see a single example where the police acted on behalf of a small indie movie.

 

R,

[Mark Dunn]

I very much hope that our police would act on a complaint regardless of the credentials of the complainer and I'm disappointed to hear that a force bearing the Queen's warrant will not. Of course I know nothing about Canadian law or jurisdiction.

One imagines that a Hollywood blockbuster is rather more likely to attract criminals.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Mark Dunn

[George Ebersole]

To be honest I can't cite a single one, but through the years I've seen news pieces on counterfeit cards for those collector card games, counterfeit "pogs" which are circular cardboard disks with pictures on them, there was the whole counterfeit bini-babies thing, and so forth.

 

Like I mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, in Singapore I saw news footage of a police shootout with a pirate DVD operation. It was part of a larger global effort sponsored by the major studios to crack down on piracy. Same news piece showed employees of either Warner or FOX pocketing DVDs and DLing footage onto hard drives so they could take it home and sell it. One of the Batman films was a subject of investigation.

 

My gut tells me that there probably isn't a whole lot of piracy done on independent films. Criminals go after stuff they know is going to make money. Stuff they recognize, with names they recognize. That's what they're after.

 

If someone did pirate an indy feature, then it's probably a matter of issuing a cease and desist. If the pirate didn't stop, then yes, it becomes a criminal matter, and I would think the police would get involved.

[Guest]

The police go after the people that pirate Hollywood movies because the film studios have the power and money to scream the loudest to the politicians. Small indie producers do not.

 

At least the useless bozos at the RCMP do not discriminate, they let the bootleggers openly sell ALL movies, indies and Hollywood blockbusters alike unmolested.

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

I don't know what to tell you. It sounds pretty bad in your neck of the woods.

 

Can you give a link to a store at the Pacific Mall you mentioned, or throw out some titles?

[Guest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Mall

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/06/13/new_rules_for_ipod_nation.html

 

I may swing by this week and see if I can find Against The Wild. Then I will take it off the shelves if I do. They'll call the police, have me arrested for shoplifting, ok fine. In court I will produce my US copyright certificate, how can I steal my own property?

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

One of your films was copied illegally, and being sold at that mall?

[Guest]

I'm going to go by this week when I am in the area and have a look. That mall is not local to me.

 

R,

[John E Clark]

For those who are interested in what organization may be holding 'independent film' interests dear:

 

http://www.ifta-online.org/

 

From their website, "Expendables 3", "The Giver", and "Sin City" are classed as an 'independent' films... so, if you are making films in that category of independence, I'm sure they will be ever vigilent in regard to your intellectual property rights.

[Guest]

, "Expendables 3", "The Giver", and "Sin City" are classed as an 'independent' films... so, if you are making films in that category of independence, I'm sure they will be ever vigilent in regard to your intellectual property rights.

 

Ha Ha, yeah right, those are "indie"movies. All three had big screen theatrical releases with substantial P&A budgets. I'm talking about people making real indie movies, movies for under 2M and in many cases under 100K.

 

Yes I know an "independent movie" is technically anything made outside of the studio system, but they are not all created equal in any regard.

 

R,

[Nicolas Courdouan]

At the risk of bringing no fresh water to the mill...

 

Most people here saying that piracy cannot be a victimless crime are referencing an outdated piracy model that is long gone. People who watch pirated copies of films do not pay for them anymore, they just stream them for free thanks to people who got a kick out of making the content available online just because they could. So there is effectively no one being paid for the "service" provided, therefore no loss of revenue in the case of people watching a streamed copy rather than never watching the film at all.

 

Yet and even though no study can ever prove just how much money is lost when a movie is pirated, it would be silly to claim that 100% of the people watching films for free online would never have paid to watch the film in a legal context, so there is a percentage of money that the studio and distributors never see and should have.

 

Here's something I heard a long time ago and that I'd like to know more about - if true: Several countries would have introduced anti-piracy taxes on a lot of high-tech items generally regarded as being piracy-friendly (think DVD-R, CD-R, hard drives), a percentage of which is used and redistributed to cover the costs "stolen" by pirates. So every time you buy a Sony CD-R, you now effectively prepay your right to burn a pirated Sony album on it. And if you buy a Sony CD-R and burn a Virgin Music album onto it, even better for Sony who is recovering more money than it lost. The opposite is also true however (poor Virgin Music...), and this system - again, if true - only works for those major multinationals and companies who own businesses selling hard drives and DVD-R. Anybody here can confirm or deny that this system is in place?

 

How do we fight piracy? I'm still in the camp that thinks nothing beats the theatre experience. There is no way in hell I would watch the latest Cronenberg on a shitty computer screen if I can watch it on the big screen. It has as much to do with quality as it has with supporting the artists that I love, and I think a majority of people still think and feel the same way about it.

 

This is why I believe most people who will or have already watched Map to the Stars online for free are people who never gave a rat's ass about watching the latest Cronenberg movie anyway, and would never have done it if they hadn't seen it offered on their usual online catalogue. In the same way I think no one in their right mind would watch Richard's Against the Wild online and not rent or buy a DVD copy if they really cared about watching the film in the first place. That does not mean no money will be lost at all - There are, after all, people who are not in their right minds. But I do believe that most of the people who actually care about watching those movies will pay to watch them. But maybe I'm just being naive.

 

In any case, the system is indeed outdated. We can now consume globally, so that's how we want to do it. Therefore, all content should be released everywhere at once. The example was mentioned before, but I remember a few years back when I was living abroad and I could not watch the TV series I followed in any other way than a one-year-late, shitty foreign-language version, I would give in and download the original version episodes as they were being aired in the States week after week to keep in the loop. When the choice is between paying and watching or not paying and watching, the former will get picked most of the time. But when the choice becomes not paying and watching or not watching at all, the tables do tend to turn.

 

The cinema experience needs to become more attractive, too. Cinemas need to stop milking the cow and projecting glorified Blu Rays on an IMAX screen while asking people to shell out 15€ or more to watch it. I know for a fact that some cinemas do it, and nothing makes me angrier. The industry seem to think that raising the prices is an effective way to cushion the impact of piracy, but it's the other way around: The hot dogs stall that sells their hot dogs for $1 less than their competition is always the one that is the most successful. While being cheaper than a pirated copy (often $0) is impossible, lowering the prices of cinema tickets will surely make more people risk the disappointment of a good night out being ruined by a terrible film watched at the Odeon Leicester Square.

 

Adding livestreamed interviews with cast and crew where the audience can participate from the auditorium via texts or emails, or screening bonus material after the show for those who are interested in seeing it could also go a long way to bring back people in the theatres.

 

And short films too. I don't know who was the idiot who thought replacing short films by adverts before the movie starts was a good idea, but a lot of people are put off by those never-ending commercials, but would probably venture in a cinema screen more often to check out an hitherto unseen 4 or 5-minute long short film at the start of the show.

 

Not mentioning the beneficial impact this would have on up and coming filmmakers who would find a larger platform to screen their first shorts, plus the industry in general who would help finance those shorts as part of the distribution costs of the feature film following them, and show people that they trust the new generation to make films that are worthy of being screened ahead of the new Star Wars or Spiderman film.

 

The industry is getting better at releasing content internationally and offering more viewing options to their clientele, but I think it still needs to go that extra mile (cheaper tickets, more value) if it really means to turn piracy into a thing of the past.

[George Ebersole]

Nicolas; the idea behind making a visual product is to have people pay money to see it. If they are seeing it without paying money, then they are stealing. It doesn't matter what your motives are; kicks, money, or a favor to friends. By not paying for content that the creator put up on the market, you have denied him monetary compensation.

 

The concept now is how to reformulate the distribution model to take away from piracy or would be piracy. I'm not sure you read the whole thread.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Nicolas; the idea behind making a visual product is to have people pay money to see it. If they are seeing it without paying money, then they are stealing. It doesn't matter what your motives are; kicks, money, or a favor to friends. By not paying for content that the creator put up on the market, you have denied him monetary compensation.

 

That's only one edge of the sword.

 

Another one is to say that thanks to piracy, your movie can be seen by many more people than had it been seen by regular, paying moviegoers. What if Richard's Against the Wild is not commercially available in the Asian market - not saying it isn't, it's just for the sake of the argument. What if piracy allowed countless people in Asia to watch the film, and what if they liked it and clamoured for his next film to get a theatrical release there?

 

http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/anurag-kashyap-i-m-thankful-to-piracy-for-saving-my-career-387981

 

I already stated in my previous post that piracy undeniably has a negative impact on sales, and yes, that is theft. Whenever you watch a movie online rather than in a theatre seat, you are denying money to someone.

 

What I was trying to challenge in my post is the idea that because a movie is available for free online, people will immediately flock towards it rather than pay to see it legally, online or in a movie theatre.

 

I still believe that the vast majority of people fall into the latter category. Current paranoia would like us to believe it's the former., but if it were true, Guardians of the Galaxy and Planet of the Apes would not be the successes they are now, because there are hundreds of available copies online.

 

Movies keep breaking records at the box office, year after year. I find it hard to believe that piracy has "crippled" the market in any relevant way. I have yet to see any tangible evidence pointing in that direction.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I'd like to add, for our friends who speak French and/or Italian, that this Italian study, provocatively entitled "Pirates saved Cinema", is available online:

 

https://www.actualitte.com/usages/les-pirates-ont-sauve-le-cinema-la-contrefacon-salvatrice-52283.htm

 

It correlates, amongst other things, the 33% increase in cinema visits between 2009 and 2014 to the increase in available pirated copies of film online, also on the rise.

 

I might attempt a translation later on, if I can be bothered. In the meantime, you can try Google's horrible translating device.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Nicolas Courdouan

[George Ebersole]

No, I've seen all forms of piracy come and go, and there's no free publicity aspect to it whatsoever. Denial of monetary compensation for a product that is visual is theft.

 

The idea behind an ad campaign or a trailer is to wet the appetite of a potential audience member so they'll come and pay to see your product.

 

The idea that people watching illegal media injects somekind of legal monetary shot is not founded. If you can show me an article in Variety, a Congressional report (CRC), an article in American Cinematographer or Millimeter, I'll read it.

 

But the last news Item I ever saw on piracy was from ET, and I've already posted the contents of that news' piece. I think NPR and Frontline also did news pieces addressing piracy, and NPR piece was to offer a solution, which was done by letting the big companies take over the function Napster offered and charging a modicum of compensation for individual songs.

 

Disney now has a Youtube channel which offers its films on demand, as per the Napster / Google / I-Tunes model, as per the Amazon / Acorn / Crackle and the plethora of other distributors out there.

 

The best promotion you can get is word of mouth, but what good is it if nobody is willing to pay to see your final product? The bottom line is is that it is because the pirates have stolen your material, and put it up for free or a different price than what you would have charged, and aren't sharing their profits with you or your investors.

 

There really isn't any two ways about it.

 

And, on the odd chance that some prod-co or major studio likes your work, then how are you going to show your project made a return? And if you can't, even if the studio likes your work, and piracy is still a problem, then why should they hire you if they can't keep their own work from being pirated? And, if there's no money because someone pirated their last film, then how are they going to pay you?

 

I very much disagree with your analysis and summation.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

By not paying for content that the creator put up on the market, you have denied him monetary compensation.

 

No more than just not watching it at all, which is the point.

 

P