dvd distribution via download?

[dvdguy]

Hey filmmakers

Alright, I have a little problemo that needs a bit of attention.

You see, I'm planning on selling my work (dvd's should I call them?) via download. So I have a few questions regarding the matter:

1. Is there anything special I should know about anti-piracy? Is it different?
2. What software is good for downloadable content? (anti-piracy)

Thanks in advance!

 

[sonnyboo]

This 'try before you buy' idea is absurd. Isn't that what trailers are for? Showing the whole film and then asking people to buy is a terrible business strategy. It's like the free samples store in the supermarket giving you all your groceries in the hope that you'll buy these groceries again. There's a reason why they only give you little tasters...

HA! I just added my restaurant metaphor as you posted this!

 

[trueindie]

So, you sold 30 copies.

I am a former series 6 and series 7 licensed broker

Congratulations!! I went through that BS myself . And 30 is a lot better than 10. Like the man said, it's 3x

So, you sold 30 copies.
It makes business sense if you want to try to sell 1-100 DVD's, maybe even 1,000. If you want to make a living as a filmmaker, not just be a hobbyist (which there's nothing wrong with that), but don't expect giving the movie away for free to be a ticket to building much of a paying audience.

That's fine. But I think Infested is talking about people like himself and myself, who are NOT making a living at the moment from their films. I'm just spending, spending, spending. I'm not really looking for an ROI at the moment. I'm looking to get discovered. For people like me, piracy, torrenting, etc. are pretty good marketing techniques. Marketing for what you ask, marketing ME! That's the way I see it. I'm not in your league. I'm not making money off my productions. For me piracy sounds like a good idea. Actually it sounds like a great idea. It actually sounds like the only free idea. Cause I don't have any other ideas. If you have some ideas, on how I can market my films and make money off them, I'd love to hear it my friend. But advise me on how much it will cost also.

 

[sonnyboo]

I'm looking to get discovered. For people like me, piracy, torrenting, etc. are pretty good marketing techniques. For me piracy sounds like a good idea. Actually it sounds like a great idea.

We're talking about 2 very different things. Torrenting/peer2peer/sharing your own movies, that you have the right to do - is cool. Pirating, which is sharing something you do NOT have the rights to (see the above example of BATTLE: LOS ANGELES), is completely different.

I have said repeatedly, sharing your own movies, if you aren't beholding to an investor(s), then have at it. I do it myself with short films every single day. That is NOT piracy, as you have the legal right to give your copyrighted film to whomever you want, however you want.

Trying to tell me that it's okay, or especially "good" for the film industry that piracy is around is ludicrous. Even when the indie filmmaker watches a movie they like and then wind up buying it, can you vouch for the several hundred thousand to millions of people who you are seeding/leeching? And what about the movies you don't like and then don't buy? A filmmaker making a movie you personally don't like is not justification for stealing their movie and opportunity to make money.

It used to be lawless in the western half of the United States. Eventually, that changed. So will the Internet and Piracy. It won't last forever because even without a physical disc, it is theft and it is illegal. Sooner or later, that will catch up and the looting will stop.

 

[trueindie]

We're talking about 2 very different things. Torrenting/peer2peer/sharing your own movies, that you have the right to do - is cool. Pirating, which is sharing something you do NOT have the rights to (see the above example of BATTLE: LOS ANGELES), is completely different.

Trying to tell me that it's okay, or especially "good" for the film industry that piracy is around is ludicrous.

Unfortunately, I'm not part of the film "industry" and I'm only talking about me

But Sonny, it's not ludicrous to think it's good for the industry. Like I said before, I did write a paper on this subject and happen to have my own opinion on the matter, which got an A from the prof (you just have to take my word for it)

Piracy is good for microsoft, because people who pirate a copy of MSOffice would never pay $500 for it. But by allowing piracy, microsoft keeps them from using Lotus Office for $10, or Star Office for $0. So Microsoft loses no money, because the user would never have paid, but Microsoft increases it's user base and keeps competitor's user base to a minimum. That's why it tacitly continues to allow piracy.
This premise works because the user microsoft is worried about, would NEVER have paid Microsoft.

Infested, would never have paid to see it. That's just a fact, because he said so. I don't see how you can dispute it. Then he saw it for free. Then he liked it. Then he paid for it. Hollywood sold another DVD. If he had never seen it, he never would have bought it.

I don't see how it's bad for the industry. They just have less control. They can't get me to buy a crappy movie by paying Roger Ebert to say something nice anymore. So if the movie is any good, I don't think it has anyting to fear from piracy. If the movie is crap, who cares. It shouldn't get a penny.

All I'm trying to find out right now is what to do with myself. At this point in my "career" I don't give two hoots about the "industry." I hope one day I get to the point where I begin to care.

I'm sure you'll not agree with me, but maybe that's because we're on different sides of the aisle
best,
aveek

 

[trueindie]

Let's try a different tact. I would like to see what everyone's answer to this is.

Why do you think you should be allowed to download any movie for free online?

I don't think I "should" be allowed to download any movie for free online,... but it happens.

Let me ask you this:

Why do you think movie studios should be allowed to falsely advertise the quality of a movie and then take my money? I saw Open Water and I felt absolutely violated and lied to. Why should they have the right to lie to me?

 

[rayw]

FWIW, I've never watched or listened to a pirated anything.
I think it's wrong, but I'm well past puberty.
My oldest son, now in college, routinely pirates mostly games, music and only some movies. Been doing so since high school. We agree to not discuss it since I can't enforce jack diddly sh!t when he's five hours away and a legal adult.
However, lately he's gone legit and now pays into NetFlix.
He still cracks security on his various devices and steals games & aps, though.

From a consumer's POV I've long quit buying albums because more often than not the one or two good songs played on the radio were indeed the best. The rest suck dog turds.
I'll be quartered and fried before paying to see another sh!tty movie in the theater.
I can wait until it comes out on DVD at my local library and watch it whenever I want and turn it off in ten to twenty minutes if it sux.
As you guys routinely advise: Don't buy when you can rent for far less. And I don't even rent, unless you count my tax dollars funding the public library's purchases of DVD's as "rent".
Personally, I find the director/producer/actor/writer commentaries immeasurably more "valuable" than the film itself, but I'm a How-To, nuts and bolts sort of guy.

I actually own less than twenty DVDs. I can remember my favorite movies.
What's the point of buying them? My memory isn't that bad.
Same for books. I'll have to wait a decade between readings, otherwise I can't concentrate on the page I'm on for anticipation of the scene i know is coming up. Pfft. Some fun that is.

Now, from a producer POV I'd have quite a few ducks over consumers just outright stealing my sh!t, authorized or not.
Drumming up business by whatever means isn't the same as piracy.
Think Disneyland puts up with scumbags hopping the fence to ride the rides?
How about I hop the fence at the local airport, sneak on board a plane and scam a trip to wherever? Why not? There's plenty of empty seats.
Think Delta would call that "Free Advertising!" or "A Test Promotion!"?
How about I spend the night in an empty hotel room?

Noooope.

(If) I produce a service product of entertainment - and someone wants it - I will trade my service product for their cash just as they trade their labor for cash.

Doctor trades labor for cash.
Lawyer trades labor for cash.
Politicians trade favors for cash.
Politician gives cash to prostitute for services. (I imagine the politician provides most of the labor, actually).
Police officers and postal workers trade labor for cash.
Entertainers and engineers trade labor for cash.
It's a pretty simple system.

Maybe I'm getting too old to comprehend this modern, fancy pants "currency" system of "I will steal your sh!t, and if I like it I might pay you, and if I don't surely 1/500 will."

'Scuze me while I go apply this theory down at the local grocery store.

 

[sonnyboo]

I don't see how it's bad for the industry. They just have less control.

And less money.... which is what is the bad part, and as an industry, they kind of rely on the money to operate. As do most people.

This is pretty black and white to me, morally and ethically. Saying "get used to piracy" is an excuse to theft is just pathetic. If you walk into a store, no one is there and no one's looking and everyone else is stealing does NOT make it okay to steal.

They can't get me to buy a crappy movie by paying Roger Ebert to say something nice anymore. So if the movie is any good, I don't think it has anyting to fear from piracy. If the movie is crap, who cares. It shouldn't get a penny.

I fail to see what you or anyone else thinks of the movie has to do with the illegality of downloading/piracy/sharing. Why does your opinion of whether a movie is good or not have anything to do with how you illegally obtained a copy to find out?

People have different opinions as to what is "good", and even though you feel a movie that isn't "good", why does that mean other people who might disagree have to suffer because it's available for free and not making the filmmaker any money?

Do book stores let you take a book home, read it, share it with a few thousand strangers, then give you a refund if you found the ending dissatisfying? Do you get free food from the grocery store and return it all if you don't think it was "good" AFTER eating it and sharing it with everyone?

I would like to know how that helps their business. I simply do not see the relation to stealing intellectual property and whether or not you found it "crap" as justification that they "shouldn't get a penny" anyway. If a movie doesn't deserve $$$, then don't buy the movie OR download it because you have no right to steal it to find out. They did not give it to you for free to discover if you'll pay for it or how you feel about the work.

*** I want you all to understand, I take this issue very seriously (obviously), and I mean no disrespect to anyone else's opinion. I am trying to understand and relate to this attitude, that is very prevalent to people under 25-30 who have had the Internet most of their lives and with that, "free" albeit illegal downloads of music, video games, TV, and movies.

I just don't understand this feeling that it's okay to steal something even if it's just 1's and 0's, the content is not yours and it's not really free. Nothing I'm writing should be taken personally, as I am debating ideas, not disparaging people.

 

[sonnyboo]

I don't think I "should" be allowed to download any movie for free online,... but it happens.

Okay. So if you found a wallet full of cash; it's okay to keep it because, you know... it happens. Almost everyone else would take the cash, so that makes it okay for you to do it.

Why do you think movie studios should be allowed to falsely advertise the quality of a movie and then take my money? I saw Open Water and I felt absolutely violated and lied to. Why should they have the right to lie to me?

Why do you feel the advertising was only to you? I saw Open Water in the theater back in 2002 and loved it. Some reviewers like a movie, and others hate it. Are the ones you disagree with liars?

I hated the Eagles Reunion CD. Does that mean it's okay for me to download it to find out it sucked, and not just download it, but share it with a few hundred thousand of my closest strangers?

Again, what does the quality (an incredibly subjective thing) matter to whether or not you get to download and share it? One has nothing to do with the other.

Using the above example, in the wallet found you found you think the dude looks like a total douchbag, so that makes it okay to keep his cash and toss the wallet?

 

[trueindie]

Okay. So if you found a wallet full of cash; it's okay to keep it because, you know... it happens. Almost everyone else would take the cash, so that makes it okay for you to do it.

I told you that it is NOT okay. Then I told you that it happens. It has nothing to do with whether "I" would take the cash or not. It just happens. You can like it, accept it, or not, or do whatever you want with that information

Okay. So if you found a wallet full of cash; it's okay to keep it because, you
Why do you feel the advertising was only to you? I saw Open Water in the theater back in 2002 and loved it. Some reviewers like a movie, and others hate it. Are the ones you disagree with liars?

So you liked the movie. So what? If you're going to tell me that hollywood doesn't try to upsell "crap" movies by wining and dining reviewers, then you and I live in different worlds and this argument will go nowhere. They don't play by the rules either. Why should everybody else live by their rules? Just because it's not written down in law, that they can't hype me out of my money with their tactics doesn't mean I have to like it. In my mind, it's illegal to rob me of my $14 and my time also. You can say they didn't try to rob me and they were being sincere in their marketing efforts, and I can tell you that they took reviewers on private jets to some fancy island and I lost my money. (I'm not talking about open water right now it can be any crap xyz movie)

Anyway, I have no intention of arguing what is beneficial or not beneficial to the industry. I'm here to figure out what is beneficial to me. I don't think about the industry or care much for it at the moment. Cause it sure as hell doesn't care about me.

 

[sonnyboo]

They don't play by the rules either. Why should everybody else live by their rules? Just because it's not written down in law, that they can't hype me out of my money with their tactics doesn't mean I have to like it. In my mind, it's illegal to rob me of my $14 and my time also.

In marketing any product of any kind - "It's the best!" How many products are advertised as "Eh, it's just okay"??? It has kind of been that way since the roots of capitalism. No one robbed you. You voluntarily paid money even though you've been mislead multiple times before by advertising, and still believed them. You have to take some responsibility in buying the tickets.

Movies are the perfect example of the "free market". People go to see a movie, and let's even say the ads are misleading (as we have all seen great trailers then the movie sucked ass). People will not see it again, will not buy it or rent it and they will not recommend it to others. The bad worth of mouth, especially in the world of Internet reviews, spreads and the movie tanks at the box office. The studio loses money on those movies. The advertising failed because of the product not connecting with the consumers. None of this explains how illegal downloads of a movie "help" the movie industry.

You may think it's unconnected to you as an indie, but it is. It relates to indie film pretty directly, as an industry. The major studios used to purchase indie films (see Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez) and now they don't. They can't afford to gamble on unknowns because what little profit there was in the home video market has be decimated by illegal downloads worldwide.

Whereas we could have had more and more indie filmmakers "discovered" and have them succeed in a career, today there are practically none of those.

 

[JoshL]

Releasing a film (or album or whathaveyou) via torrents, you are left with the same issue as with traditional and profitable means: who is going to find it/see it/download it? No one is going to search for your movie if they don't know about it first, and with the quantity of stuff out there, the odds of people stumbling across it are pretty low. We'd like to think entertainment is a meritocracy, but it isn't. Crap can be popular, and good work can be overlooked. Often.

There are some happy stories; I caught the movie Ink (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071804/) on Netflix a few months ago and absolutely loved it. According to the trivia, it was released with a "piracy okay" policy, which brought a film that no one wanted to distribute to a wider market. I don't know the whole details of the story (or if they turned a profit at the end of the day), but if their goal was to reach their audience, they did.

Bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have experimented with "pay what you like" albums, and done remarkably well with physical sales. But those are BIG names. I have plenty of friends who did "free downloads" with little to no takers (some of which was really brilliant music). It is, once again, a matter of marketing and advertising.

Now, to split the difference, you could try a private torrent, that you sell keys to. You'd need some decent seeds going (maybe give keys to a network of friends that want to help you start out), but that can keep bandwidth down a little bit (on a per-person basis anyway). There WILL be piracy (there always is, even if you don't digitally distribute), but that might be a way to get some money going to the right place. I definitely think the industry needs to find a way to turn piracy into income; it's not going to go away and we're raising a generation of people who don't support the films and music they love (why pay for what you can get for free?) But it'll take a much smarter person than I to really figure it out.

 

[sonnyboo]

If you have some ideas, on how I can market my films and make money off them, I'd love to hear it my friend. But advise me on how much it will cost also.

Niche marketing is the key. No matter what, you'll have to spend a little $$$, but not necessarily that much.

#1. Write a formal press release. See the format, follow it, but what is most key is to write about the "human interest" angle of a journalist. Read articles and write your press release in true format, but like the articles you read on movies. Try to zero in on whatever was the most interesting and unique aspect. For my first feature film, it was using WWII re-enactors. The press seemed to latch on to that as the main focus of the story.

#2. Target who you want to reach. For a horror film, there are shit tons of horror blogs, websites, magazines, conventions, you name it. Send out at least 40-50 DVD's to well known reviewers with a nice cover letter.

#3. Film festivals. Even horror films have dedicated film festivals. Laurel leaves on the posters showing that an unbiased 3rd party unaffiliated with the production liked your movie enough to put it in front of an audience has value.

#4. If you want to actually make money on your self released DVD's, the key are convention type environments. Renting a table or a booth and selling your product is directly reaching the buying public. Every year I attend an indie film convention and sell anywhere from 50-200 DVD's each year, even when there's a low attendance at the convention.

So your costs are time, a little money in sending out DVD screeners, and renting a table or booth. They math tends to work out in your favor in the long run. Ask TROMA, as they have been working this method for 30+ years.

 

[2001 Productions]

Great post, sonny!

 

[Joe Citizen]

Hey filmmakers

Alright, I have a little problemo that needs a bit of attention.

You see, I'm planning on selling my work (dvd's should I call them?) via download. So I have a few questions regarding the matter:

1. Is there anything special I should know about anti-piracy? Is it different?
2. What software is good for downloadable content? (anti-piracy)

Thanks in advance!

Just some thoughts here.

1) think of piracy/anti-piracy as an arms race, because it is. There is no "so I can sleep at night" fix here. It's an ongoing battle. Episodic content has an advantage here, because distributors can change their protection measures on the fly, and take advantage of the lag between release and pirates breaking protection (in other words, the kids will get tired of waiting and buy your stuff before it gets cracked).

2. think of piracy as a thirst for "try before you buy." Sure, most kids will just download and watch and that's the end of it, but SOME really are just trying to see if it's a product worth having before they shell out their hard-earned cash.

3. similar to #2, think in terms of added value. For example, extras are rarely ripped or distributed. So put a lot of extras on your DVDs. Your biggest fans will want the extras and shell out the cash to get them. Same goes for stuff like branching endings and whatnot.

4. again similar to #2, consider beating the pirates to the punch. Release a watermarked, low-res version of your content on all the big torrent sites right out of the gate. This will rob many people of the motivation to rip and upload your stuff. It will also provide a not-quite-acceptable demo copy for those "try before you buy" kids.

5. similar to #4, adopt a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy. Generally speaking, you can't beat 'em. So consider torrents as a free marketing tool. Sure, most of the kids downloading your stuff are simply ripping you off. But a few aren't, and will buy your product if it's quality. And guess what, if it's quality, even the kids who are just ripping you off are going to create buzz and eventually the old fogies who don't even know how to rip you off will hear about it, and they'll buy your product.

6. pay attention to which torrent sites are responsive to letters from lawyers, and get your content removed from their sites.

7. if your stuff does get ripped and ends up on all the torrent sites, rejoice! It means there's a demand for your product.

8. Consider your audience niche. For example, Christians who take their religion seriously are not likely to torrent a serious Christian movie by Christians who take their religion seriously. And nobody else is likely to want to pirate it.

Not really a fun subject, but you have to try to squeeze a bit of lemonade out of the lemons.

Just stagger the release of about 10 decoy torrents and that will help if anyone ever does post an illegal torrent.

Yup, excellent advice. I forgot to mention that one.

I wonder if advertising might be the way to go here? Sure, someone will cut out the ads and upload the edited version, but still, ads would be one way to take advantage of piracy.

 

[Joe Citizen]

Releasing a film (or album or whathaveyou) via torrents, you are left with the same issue as with traditional and profitable means: who is going to find it/see it/download it? No one is going to search for your movie if they don't know about it first, and with the quantity of stuff out there, the odds of people stumbling across it are pretty low. We'd like to think entertainment is a meritocracy, but it isn't. Crap can be popular, and good work can be overlooked. Often.

Yes and no. The little secret content distributors don't want you to know is that in many ways, torrents are a technically superior method of distribution. In short, it's more convenient. You download a small file from a website with one click. A few hours or a couple days later, and the content is on your hard drive. That's more convenient than just about every official channel I can think of. So the barriers to being viewed are a lot lower for torrents, even if you put aside the matter of filling in credit card info.

 

[Joe Citizen]

I don't see how it's bad for the industry. They just have less control. They can't get me to buy a crappy movie by paying Roger Ebert to say something nice anymore. So if the movie is any good, I don't think it has anyting to fear from piracy. If the movie is crap, who cares. It shouldn't get a penny.

All I'm trying to find out right now is what to do with myself. At this point in my "career" I don't give two hoots about the "industry." I hope one day I get to the point where I begin to care.

I'm sure you'll not agree with me, but maybe that's because we're on different sides of the aisle
best,
aveek

Apparently there's quite a bit of room between the two factions in this thread, because I can easily agree with many of the arguments of the more "pro-piracy" side without going so far as to assert that piracy is good for Hollywood. It's clearly not good for Hollywood.

I don't see IP piracy as "theft." "Theft" means you took something without permission, AND the guy you took it from no longer has it. "Copyright violation" isn't necessarily "theft." A guy living in a shack with a DSL connection and no discretionary income is not going to buy your stuff if he can't pirate it. He's going to go without. Since his copyright violations or piracy or whatever have no impact on your revenue stream one way or the other, he isn't stealing from you. Not saying this applies to the people who do have discretionary income and would buy if they couldn't pirate, but we're talking definitions here, and our guy in the shack shoots the "theft" definition all to hell.

Like a comedian once said: "Now, if I could make my friend a copy of my Ferrari..."

 

[sonnyboo]

I don't see IP piracy as "theft." "Theft" means you took something without permission, AND the guy you took it from no longer has it.

But that isn't true. The definition of "theft" is taking something without permission. There is no "and"... That's why the law that people are breaking is called the "Intellectual Property Theft Act".

The film is still the same whether it's a 35mm film print, a DVD, a VHS, a BetaMax, or a digital file. The moving images with sound as written and directed and edited IS the property being stolen without permission. Just because there is no physical item anymore, does NOT negate the THEFT....

Now I am not saying you are wrong that the poor kids around the world with DSL downloading it wouldn't have bought it anyways, but my same point applies - they should go without, as in they have no right to get this movie. They are still stealing it. Just because they WOULDN'T buy it means they have the legal or ethical right to steal it.

 

[Joe Citizen]

But that isn't true. The definition of "theft" is taking something without permission.

The definition of "taking" something is, "now I have it and you don't." The definition of "copying" something is "now you still have it, and I have it too."

It's not theft.

There is no "and"... That's why the law that people are breaking is called the "Intellectual Property Theft Act".

It's called the "Intellectual Property Theft Act" because that's what they named it. If they'd named it the "Intellectual Property Nuclear Bomb-dropping and assorted Terrorism Act," I wouldn't be persuaded it was nuclear combat or terrorism, either.

The film is still the same whether it's a 35mm film print, a DVD, a VHS, a BetaMax, or a digital file. The moving images with sound as written and directed and edited IS the property being stolen without permission. Just because there is no physical item anymore, does NOT negate the THEFT....

Sorry, you're just not going to convince me that copying is the same as theft, at least, not categorically. Yes, copying (pirating) content can amount to a loss of revenue, but that is down to circumstances. It is not inherently theft. It is illegal, but not theft.

Now I am not saying you are wrong that the poor kids around the world with DSL downloading it wouldn't have bought it anyways, but my same point applies - they should go without, as in they have no right to get this movie. They are still stealing it. Just because they WOULDN'T buy it means they have the legal or ethical right to steal it.

No, they have no right to it. But that still doesn't make copying equivalent to theft.

I get that "theft" and "stealing" are more pejorative than "copier" or "illegal copier." So I can sympathize with the industry (or individuals') reasons for calling it that. But I don't share their definition. To me, "stealing" or "theft" inherently involve depriving someone of something, and copying does not.

 

[Joe Citizen]

Look at it this way. I invent a device that can create a perfect copy of any object, without altering the original in any way. If I use it to make myself a Ferrari, have I committed theft? Sure, you can find a lawyer who thinks so. And a politician. And the Ferrari folks would certainly call it theft. But would anyone not being paid think so?

I think the average Joe can get behind the idea that Ferrari is probably going to go out of business if everyone can use my $5 invention to make their own Ferrari. And the idea that without Ferrari doing all the hard work to make that car in the first place, there'd be no copies. So it's not like Joe isn't sympathetic, or thinks Ferrari and the lawyer and the politician don't have a point. It's just that Joe thinks the word "theft" isn't really accurate here.

I guess my point is, calling it "theft" degrades the actual crime of "theft." Look at all the comparisons to actual theft in this thread. Food? Uh, no, if I steal food, the guy I stole it from doesn't have it any more. The loss is inherent.

 

[2001 Productions]

Sorry, Joe, you're analogy is misguided. The emphasis in Sonnyboo's definition should not be on the word "taking", but the phrase "without permission". If you have permission to take someone's intellectual property then it is not theft; if you don't, it is, whether or not they still "have it". The FBI agrees. Argue the semantics with them if you want.