Law firm will fight illegal downloadin of your movie for free

[Blade_Jones]

Anyone pissed that their movie is being GIVEN away on PirateBay? Well now a law firm will file a lawsuit for free on your behalf.

Virginia-based law firm Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver is filing lawsuits against illegal downloaders.

The enterprising lawyers, under the operative the U.S. Copyright Group, seek out indie filmmakers and offer to sue anonymous movie pirates for no charge. The firm then subpoenas Verizon, AT&T and other ISPs to identify each John Doe user, and threatens to sue each person for $150,000 unless they agree to a $1,500 to $2,500 settlement fee, according to Ars Technica's Law & Disorder blog and Techdirt. Defendants can pony up the cash on a website set up to accept checks and credit cards.

http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/article/lawyers_poised_to_bank_millions_on_p2p_prosecution

 

[sonnyboo]

Sonnyboo, what movie have you made that you feel like you are getting ripped off on? Personally, it seems like you think you are getting ripped off thousand and thousands of dollars. I looked at your listing on IMDB and the first feature I came across was Horrors of War 2006. I looked it up on torrent sites and it's barely active. Has no seeders and or leechers so what's the problem?

For the umpteenth time, the foreign distributors stopped buying the movie from us because it is even AVAILABLE from torrent sites. They don't care how many leechers are active. We've lost well over $50,000 from DVD and TV sales in foreign territories specifically because the movie was for sale in bootleg DVD bins burned from torrent sites in Africa, South America, and Asia. The amount $50,000 is a break down of amounts we made from similar territories and a history of what movies at our level have sold in that territory in the past 5 years. It's a very realistic number using actual experience.

Also, did you look it up by all of it's various names from the different countries? There are at least 3 variant titles now. The damage was done starting in 2005 when it first went online, but the law firm says they can still track IP's for up to 3 years now. Any seeders and leechers have their info logged and can be tracked.

A friend of mine from INDIECLUB actually bought and sent me a bootleg copy from Columbia, and an actor's brother sent us a copy from Congo, and a few soldiers in Iraq emailed me after buying copies on an army base from the torrent files. We never made official sales in any of those countries and they turned us down because it was already for sale there. Other countries we approached had similar responses at AFM and Cannes Film Market.

As I already stated, the DVD-Rip that is out there on the torrents isn't even the final cut of the film or has a finished sound mix. Most of the IMDB reviews are for an unfinished workprint of the movie that has a drastically different sequence to the movie from the final cut. So I'm supposed to build a fan base on this, which I did not ever want seen? I had no say or control over this bootleg.

I guess I'll make sure to explain this yet again, I think HORRORS OF WAR is not a great film. It's my first feature and very flawed, even in the final cut. A good movie or bad movie has nothing to do with how much money it's worth and how much it makes. Foreign buyers sometimes distribute movies solely based on the DVD art. Anyone with 20 minutes experience with a film with real distribution can tell you that. Roger Corman's entire career is based on this reality. The making of a film and the business of selling a film have little to do with each other.

I love the DVD art the Japanese distributor did for HORRORS OF WAR. I think it's horribly wrong for our movie though. It's misleading. I said so, and loudly, but when the American DVD release came out, they used the same cover. Every review on Blockbuster.com, Amazon.com, and elsewhere all start with "don't be fooled by the cover". In England, they listed a ton of extras on the back cover, none of which were on the DVD. WE got blamed for this, not the distributor who didn't include all the stuff we gave them.

So to summarize, I'm not delusional; I know my movie isn't that great, but that has nothing to do with the money that is lost. I get paid by the advances for the territories, so it doesn't matter what customers think of the movie. Those advances stopped once it went online on torrent sites. I will get money from people who upload/download this movie illegally.

 

[Buddy Greenfield]

Sonny, I accept and in turn also offer my apologizes for beating a loud drum of cheap words on a subject so close to hearts and livelihoods.

-Thanks-

 

[TheBuck]

So besides sonnyboo is anyone else on here using that law firm to sue?

sonnyboo: did the law firm say how many others they are representing in this mass suite?

They can track IPs 3 years back? That just doesn't sound right. If they try that I think there will be a lot of wrongly accused folks.

Wait so your movie was up on the net a full year before it was done? Did you find out who put it up there and then sue that person for theft? It would have been done from someone within the "house" I would think getting that person would be higher up on your list of people to sue since A)that person stole your movie before it was done B)That person is the real reason for the last of cash (if it wasn't for that person you prob would have been able to sell it) C)That it was someone you trusted within your "house"

 

[Blade_Jones]

So besides sonnyboo is anyone else on here using that law firm to sue?

I've flooded the torrents with decoys so I have piracy under control, but if some assh*le ever posts some of my stuff I will be calling that law firm ASAP. I could care less about piracy thieves getting "upset".

It's a full time job just polluting the web with "junk torrents". I spent 2 months flooding the torrents with "junk torrents". You also have to create something that might be confused for the real thing - whether it be audio, a movie or software. This way the torrent doesn't get bad reviews. Software makers are always propagating torrents with software that is unstable or that won't install properly. People get frustrated and just buy the real thing. I'm not saying that I do it ( as far as you know ) but people have been known to embed viruses in torrents. ; ) Sooner or later DL'ers will pay for their sins.

BTW another option (besides suing) is to create a screenshot of the downloader's Ipaddress as they download your stuff, and also note their port number and the time. Then use whatismyipaddress.com to figure out who their ISP is. Most internet service providers will respond to copyright complaints by notifying the account holder to stop. If they continue to get complaints they will discontinue their internet service. Then the seeder will have to switch to another ISP, but usually they stop after the first notice.

 

[chilipie]

Like TheBuck, I've no idea how they can possibly trace IP addresses from people downloading it three years ago. IP addresses change regularly, and I can imagine a lot of ISPs would be unwilling to give away a customer's details.

Seeding dodgy installers and corrupt video files is fair enough, but I think deliberately spreading viruses is highly unethical. Yes, you get petty revenge on the person pirating your work, but you've no control over where they go from there, and could end up infecting the computers of innocent parties - family, friends, co-workers etc.

 

[sonnyboo]

So besides sonnyboo is anyone else on here using that law firm to sue?

sonnyboo: did the law firm say how many others they are representing in this mass suite?

They can track IPs 3 years back? That just doesn't sound right. If they try that I think there will be a lot of wrongly accused folks.

Wait so your movie was up on the net a full year before it was done? Did you find out who put it up there and then sue that person for theft? It would have been done from someone within the "house" I would think getting that person would be higher up on your list of people to sue since A)that person stole your movie before it was done B)That person is the real reason for the last of cash (if it wasn't for that person you prob would have been able to sell it) C)That it was someone you trusted within your "house"

I doubt there are many people on this board who have a movie finished with a budget over a few hundred thousand dollars.

IMDB is not the most reliable source for information. We finished the movie in November 2005. Enough people from the sales end of things saw the rough cut from AFM in 2005 where we had screeners made and the watermark is blacked out. No one from the cast or crew HAD that copy of the film. The film was first released in 2006 in Japan, then Belgium-Luxembourg-Netherlands, and they used the rough cut for their DVD's. The copy that is out there, as I have seen this copy, is from either a screener or the Benelux first pressing with the red cover, not the blue cover re-release. The torrents first appeared in 2006.

Whoever stole it first does not negate any of the other theft being done since then. Still not worried about suing each person who has downloaded the film. Whoever is paying for the Internet at the IP address is responsible for whatever is done on their connection, usually head of a household, etc. The ISP keeps track of who had been assigned which IP for a period of over 5 years, at least that is what I am told.

Any more details from the case will be confidential. I didn't ask how many other films they are representing, but they are representing at least 4 other filmmakers I know personally, and also HURT LOCKER.

 

[Brooksy]

"Most of the investors I know would never want to put money with a filmmaker who is less concerned with making their money back and more about building fans with illegal copies that don't pay anything. This is a ludicrous business model to HOPE that someone will like the movie enough to buy it after getting it for free. If you can find money people that are willing to go with this plan, I'd love to meet them. I would have a bridge for sale."

Well, I have no plan on becoming a producer of any kind. My ultimate goal will be to become a Director of Photography. I sincerely doubt I will have any dealing with any kind of investor of any sort. Possibly guaranteeing
them that I will deliver the best product I can, but that doesn't remotely touch the surface of getting there money back.

So yeah, I agree that that sales pitch is a ludicrous idea. I wouldn't invest my money in a pitch like that either. Again which is why I won't ever try to be a producer. Besides Sonnyboo you don't need to get defensive here. I never once accused you of anything I simply asked questions, never meant to offend.

 

[sonnyboo]

I wasn't offended. Reading and interpreting intent is difficult. I take the business end seriously because it affects my income. I am making a living at this and illegal downloads have cost me significant amounts of money.

Finding investors that haven't been ripped off or are skittish over the current distribution models and the illegal downloads and how they affect profitability are all factors as to why it's so hard to make a feature film today, at least without being a no budget movie with no hope of making money.

 

[paralanguage]

maybe im a crazy dreamer but instead of trying to pursue something that is as elusive and unstoppable as illegal downloading, maybe its time to embrace the current technology. i know im new and im basically begging seemingly everyone to yell at me right now but i dont understand why a balance cant be made. If sites hosted movies and made you suffer through some commercials before watching them instead of paying for them, wouldnt it be a good compromise as more people would watch more movies which would make the filmmakers ad revenue? i know this could be naive but since television makes a good buck from ad revenue, while dealing with a massive amount of overhead, its not all that insane to think that the film industry could do the same.

 

[Brooksy]

maybe im a crazy dreamer but instead of trying to pursue something that is as elusive and unstoppable as illegal downloading, maybe its time to embrace the current technology. i know im new and im basically begging seemingly everyone to yell at me right now but i dont understand why a balance cant be made. If sites hosted movies and made you suffer through some commercials before watching them instead of paying for them, wouldnt it be a good compromise as more people would watch more movies which would make the filmmakers ad revenue? i know this could be naive but since television makes a good buck from ad revenue, while dealing with a massive amount of overhead, its not all that insane to think that the film industry could do the same.

I agree with you partly. I agree with the fact that illegal downloading is near impossible to put to a complete halt. And we should instead try to settle with the idea that it is going to happen. But then how do you get money for your movie? Well, I have always felt that instead of getting investors to pump money into your product, which means having to make them a promise that you will try to get their money back by selling DVD's, you should try to get yourself sponsors. I will try to explain.

Imagine that you just wrote a script like Clerks, two guys working in a small shop talking about life. And instead of going out and getting a few investors you approach a big sponsor like Kwik Trip and tell them that the entire movie will take place around two guys working in a quick trip. So now instead of having to make money back for them selling DVD's you can make money back for them by getting business to come to more Kwik Trips. This isn't a new idea, think of ET and Reese's Pieces.

Now of course there are flaws to this scenario. I didn't pick the best movie store combination, I'm sure, but you can get my point and the script will need to be adjusted. But in this scenario illegal downloads can almost help instead of really hurt. Not that I agree with downloading a movie illegally anyway but you can see where I am coming from.

Again I am not a producer nor do I want to become one. Just thought I would throw my two cents into the mix.

 

[sonnyboo]

You're referring to the concept of PRODUCT PLACEMENT, which in itself is a great idea. Try convincing them to put money into a movie with no name stars from new filmmakers. I think this will work regionally to a certain degree, though. With local companies and outlets in regional markets, this plan will be a part of the future.

As for the idea of streaming it with some ads, that's what HULU is and does, but will still be affected by the illegal DVD rips put on torrent sites with no commercial breaks.

 

[Brooksy]

Not so much product placement but more along the lines of the story almost revolving around a product. I think a better example would probably be the movie "Waiting...". I mean it is a movie that centers around this restaurant. That means the product was showcased for almost a full 2 hours. That's a lot of air time and a lot of viewers starring at one particular product. Again just my thoughts. And yeah I don't think there is a singular perfect solution.

 

[sonnyboo]

BMW Films did the 8 short film series with Clive Owen and 8 world class directors what is similar to what you are describing. Jason Reitman started off with a short film for Ford Focus called GULP that was like that too. These are all very tasteful and artistic films, but also clearly product placements. There were the America Express-Seinfeld-Superman shorts too, but those in the end were clearly commercials.

 

[Blade_Jones]

maybe im a crazy dreamer but instead of trying to pursue something that is as elusive and unstoppable as illegal downloading, maybe its time to embrace the current technology.

To embrace PirateBay is like for a liquor to accept looting and go out of business. Record companies have decided that they must make money off of touring. Filmmakers cannot "tour".
As previously stated illegal downloading isn't unstoppable. There are ways to foul it up and there are ways to bring back law and order. The major players may have given up, but indie filmmakers actually have a fighting chance. People aren't posting multiple torrents by "Joe indie filmmaker". This makes just 20 decoys all the more effective.

 

[Tinalera]

*tips toe into water*

Wow, what a thread.

This is a slight detour, but I think is related: how does one deal with the problem of movies that are no longer in print?

An example: My wife LOVES "In God We Trust" with Marty Feldman. The film is out of print. You want a copy of it? Go to Ebay and pay 90 bucks for a VHS copy. Basically you can't get it anywhere else. How am I supposed to watch this move that she wants to own? I'm not say piracy is the answer, it's not even on youtube (which is again in that whole sharing realm). So if someone has a copy of it on their harddrive and wants to give it to me(not sell it, but I realise it's not about sales), what other option do I have (other paying 90 bucks for a VHS) I like a lot of the older movies, and stuff that's hard/impossible to find/buy-what advice for those like me? Tough Noogies? It is a problem.



BTW-I've been on mini-haitus, trying to ease my way back into the site

 

[M1chae1]

Record companies have decided that they must make money off of touring. Filmmakers cannot "tour".

This is not entirely true. We can 'tour'...it's called theatrical screenings. And I'm not talking about nation-wide or anything ludicrously expensive...I'm talking about 'four walling' select theaters, and making money that way. This is how the company I work for (Scorpio Film Releasing) makes most of their money back...screenings.

$9 a ticket...a handful of successful screenings a year...a month...whatever...and you're sitting on some money.

In fact as I mentioned before, this his how our director and producer plan to release their newest feature (ATOMIC BRAIN INVASION), is by ONLY screening it for the first two years or so. Then, after that time, we will release it on DVD, and will have already been well in the the green at that point...no losses.

I know that's a tough model to work with...especially with larger budgets that may have investors attached...but it'll definitely put a dead stop to pirating (at least in the beginning when you're looking for money to come in).

If you have a distributor involved, perhaps they will even work with this model, and get behind it.

Let's be honest...no one can stop your movie from being pirated...no one. There are thousands of illegal child porn movies circulating the internet, and the Feds can't even stop them...how do you expect a few lawyers to stop your indie movie from being pirated?

You have to embrace the technology, and work with it. You think it's bad now? Just wait 5 or 10 more years when Netflix introduces an even better streaming plan.

It's time to get creative...it's a waste of time trying to stop pirates. Use that energy elsewhere.

Also, if you're loosing money (and face) from pirates...then maybe you might want to consider lowering your budget level until you figure out a model that works for you. I'm telling you...with today's technology you don't need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a great looking movie. You're only asking to lose money at those 'in-between' budget levels. We make our features for under 8K...yes...that's not a lot...but our movies look great, are entertaining, and profit off of the screenings alone--the rest is gravy (and we're always distributed nationally).

Just remember...you have to be *extra* creative at these lower budget levels. You have to love it, and work sweat equity. But if you do it right, you won't need investors...your previous film will gross enough profit to rinse and repeat the cycle.

If you want to play hardball in the majors...well...then expect bigger loses, and hotter flames. Just don't expect to stop the pirating of your movie...it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Morris]

This is how some of the early motion picture producers started. Also, to a degree, this is how some of the black pictures in the 70s made their money like Po Boy Productions.

 

[Blade_Jones]

This is not entirely true. We can 'tour'...it's called theatrical screenings.

Who is "we"? Certainly "we" is not indie filmmakers. No "Joe Indie Filmmaker" is getting theatrical distribution.

50% of the big studio's profits are from DVD sales. So if we're at the point that we are supposed to concede our DVD sales because it's politically incorrect to fight theft, we have lost our minds.

 

[L.I.F.E.]

I think you guys might also be missing the point that some people love movies, but are not able to afford them, especially relatively low budget ones. So my question is would you rather have people watch your movies and see your "greatness" or "p.o.s." or would you rather they never see it and never tell their friends how great it is?

Furthermore, this is a hot subject and I have read every single reply on this thread, but I must personally say that $1500-2500 for pirating a movie is an absolute joke. The people I know who pirate movies cannot afford them in the first place, now you "empowered" behind lawyers, indie filmmakers are going to try and sue them for more than they took? Really? They may have stolen something, but your going to come right back and steal from them? I'm sorry but this whole thing rubbed me the wrong way. I was always taught 2 wrongs do not make a right. I think its wrong to take back 10+ fold what they took from you. If you wanted to go around and sue for what the movie costs, I'd understand, but this method is just ludicrous.

 

[sonnyboo]

I think you guys might also be missing the point that some people love movies, but are not able to afford them, especially relatively low budget ones. So my question is would you rather have people watch your movies and see your "greatness" or "p.o.s." or would you rather they never see it and never tell their friends how great it is?

Obviously you are missing a major point.... I'm far more interested in getting my investors money back than having people steal my movie and tell other people how great it was. Yes, I'd rather they not steal it and not tell their friends, at least that's how I personally feel about my movies.

Then again, the same regurgitated argument comes out of this thread. If I only spent a few thousand dollars on my feature film, I'd probably feel okay with people downloading it as long as I had made back my money. When I have a few hundred thousand dollars on the line, it feels substantially different.

$9 a ticket...a handful of successful screenings a year...a month...whatever...and you're sitting on some money.

Do the math on four walling - you have to spend a few hundred dollars to rent the theater - average $200 (which is low, as places like New York movie theater screens are several THOUSAND dollars for a single screening). At the stated $9 per ticket, you have to sell 22 tickets to cover the cost. If you want to have even 3 people show up and buy tickets you have to advertise, that costs more money. Even guerrilla marketing costs some money. So if you sell 100 tickets at $9 each, you make about $700 whole dollars, not including any kind of marketing costs or the expenses of travel and food per person from the film to accompany the film. So even if by some miracle you sell 100 tickets at each show 25 times, you will make $17,500 (still not including any kind of travel, food, or promotional expenses). If your budget of your film was even at $50,000, nonetheless 10 times that, you aren't going to compensate for the loss of revenue from DVD sales to pirating or other changes in distribution from four walling. Plus the likelihood of selling a hundred tickets at each show is being overly optimistic (which is an understatement), as in that would be sold out shows for a movie with no name stars in cities that have nothing to do with the movie at hand with no press or reason for people to see the movie.

Four walling is nothing like the profitability of touring for a musician who can make hundreds of thousands of dollars playing mid level venues. The similarities are metaphorical, not financial.