“HATE PIRACY” badge is totally free. It's not a BUSINESS. It's just an awareness to make a better and piracy-free world.
Last edited:
-
You are welcome to promote here, but members are also welcome to reply with their opinions.
To the filmmakers, who HATE piracy...
- Thread starter ntpiracy.com
- Start date
This reminds me of the battle of human vs. virus.
Our medical science is quite advanced. Because of it, our average life-span is way longer than any other time in human history. And yet, we can't vanquish one of the worst killers -- the common cold.
Our culture is pretty complex, and we're pretty smart and stuff. But there is simply no way we could possibly keep up with the rapid evolution of a virus. We're fucked. We can make vaccines for this virus and that virus, but we will never win this battle. We will constantly be a step behind, because the virus replicates so much faster than we could ever dream of keeping up with.
Yeah, yeah, piracy is lame. So is the common cold. You better figure out how to live with it.
Our medical science is quite advanced. Because of it, our average life-span is way longer than any other time in human history. And yet, we can't vanquish one of the worst killers -- the common cold.
Our culture is pretty complex, and we're pretty smart and stuff. But there is simply no way we could possibly keep up with the rapid evolution of a virus. We're fucked. We can make vaccines for this virus and that virus, but we will never win this battle. We will constantly be a step behind, because the virus replicates so much faster than we could ever dream of keeping up with.
Yeah, yeah, piracy is lame. So is the common cold. You better figure out how to live with it.
Yes we do live our life even with the common cold as because we have to live our life longer. But we take medicine to fight against this common cold to live our life. We just don't sleep and let the common cold ride on us. We visit doctors as well. The thing is we want to get over it. We do our best to get over it.
Like that we'll have to try our best to get rid of piracy.
Like that we'll have to try our best to get rid of piracy.
Last edited:
I did a thread related to this issue a while ago (this one has gotten further than mine)
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=22687&highlight=entitlement
I think this was the one that got sidetracked I think, but it's interesting for reference.
I think part of the difficulty is that we have two generations now (Mine is one of them), where it's seen as "okay" to do this by general culture. I grew up recording music off the radio onto tapes. Canada ended up putting a surtax on blank cassettes to help cover the cost of royalties. It was nothing for us to put a 90 min tape (45 min each side) and record music, then re-record what we wanted (sans commercials) on another tape(hell my father had a 8 hour reel to reel, he just recorded all the live long day!). Now, downloading music, movies whatever, is again seen as "okay"(and this was the issue I was trying to get to in my thread-where did it come from? The short answer seemed "people do it because they get away with it", though it got further than that. The face that the internet is such a labrynth doesn't make it easier. I would be interested to see if the enforcement of the law of filming in theatres has made any dent.
Maybe it will take my kids growing up and saying "this isn't right". It would be interesting, and this has been discussed, about getting a similar thing to music-people will pay a buck for a song-what do you charge for a film? But maybe that's another thread. But maybe if we can come up with a similar model, seeing as downloading films via rental is already happening, of paying X amount for a film (Itunes does it, but I believe you have to burn to a DVD, rather than a straight digital copy,) would it have the same effect as it did for music downloads?
Note, I do realise that music piracy hasn't disappeared, but I think Itunes and the like have made a dent.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=22687&highlight=entitlement
I think this was the one that got sidetracked I think, but it's interesting for reference.
I think part of the difficulty is that we have two generations now (Mine is one of them), where it's seen as "okay" to do this by general culture. I grew up recording music off the radio onto tapes. Canada ended up putting a surtax on blank cassettes to help cover the cost of royalties. It was nothing for us to put a 90 min tape (45 min each side) and record music, then re-record what we wanted (sans commercials) on another tape(hell my father had a 8 hour reel to reel, he just recorded all the live long day!). Now, downloading music, movies whatever, is again seen as "okay"(and this was the issue I was trying to get to in my thread-where did it come from? The short answer seemed "people do it because they get away with it", though it got further than that. The face that the internet is such a labrynth doesn't make it easier. I would be interested to see if the enforcement of the law of filming in theatres has made any dent.
Maybe it will take my kids growing up and saying "this isn't right". It would be interesting, and this has been discussed, about getting a similar thing to music-people will pay a buck for a song-what do you charge for a film? But maybe that's another thread. But maybe if we can come up with a similar model, seeing as downloading films via rental is already happening, of paying X amount for a film (Itunes does it, but I believe you have to burn to a DVD, rather than a straight digital copy,) would it have the same effect as it did for music downloads?
Note, I do realise that music piracy hasn't disappeared, but I think Itunes and the like have made a dent.
Great metaphor.... and completely non-related.
A biological virus is not a choice. Piracy is a voluntary act.
Really? One of the worst killers? I hope you were being facetious but just in case.... the common cold is not lethal to someone with a healthy immune system.
And the Chinese do have anti-viral medications and treatment, it's just us here in the west that haven't gotten around to 'curing' it.
I've always been torn on this subject: the artist/aesthete in me feels all visual/intellectual material should be free and accessible because in my heart I believe *it (our visual history, in particular)* is as fundamental a tool to we visual artists as, say, a planer would be to a woodworker. While I would not want the direct appropriation of my work without some sort of remuneration, I would love to see if parts of it ever inspired someone else in their work, or another artist *built* upon some aspect of it....that's the historical nature of most acts.
I bet most of you guys, here, would rather have a legacy of work you're remembered for long after you've gone, than being fairly compensated while alive, or maybe I'm just projecting. lol
I bet most of you guys, here, would rather have a legacy of work you're remembered for long after you've gone, than being fairly compensated while alive, or maybe I'm just projecting. lol
I've had this really far out idea for a little while now(and it would never happen, so let's look at it as a hypothetical exercise 
-
Say, far off in the future, the government determined that everyone should be able to do what they enjoy doing-for us it's filmmaking. So say the gov said "You know what? We'll pay you X amount of dollars per month-enough to live comfortably on(let's keep the "socialist" arguments out of this, this isn't the place). In return, we would be required, oh for argument sake, to submit one film short every two months. All get submitted to the government, and the gov sells and gets money for project and that money continues to fund being able to survive-the catch? You no longer hold the rights to that particular film-the gov does and allows every one to share and use as they see fit. If you wish to make other projects on the side to augument your income, you're welcome too sell as you see fit, with the gov getting a percentage. You would hold rights to these films, however, you must provide a reasonable reason to deny permission, and the amount you ask for royalties would capped.
So, in a nutshell-I defined work sent to gov every two months. Other works you can sell yourself, gov gets percentage and limited compensation. You in turn get X amount of dollars to survive on comfortably from the gov, in effect getting "paid" for your work.
Would we as filmmakers be happy about this arrangement? I say I'd seriously have to consider it if it meant I could feed and raise myself and my family comfortably. We would be getting paid for our work, so we aren't "Giving it away", but what good would piracy do in this case? All that would be shared mostly is stuff that everyone has the right too anyway I would think.
I'd like to keep the discussion related to piracy, and leave out "socialist" argument-I'm not here to argue politics
-Say, far off in the future, the government determined that everyone should be able to do what they enjoy doing-for us it's filmmaking. So say the gov said "You know what? We'll pay you X amount of dollars per month-enough to live comfortably on(let's keep the "socialist" arguments out of this, this isn't the place). In return, we would be required, oh for argument sake, to submit one film short every two months. All get submitted to the government, and the gov sells and gets money for project and that money continues to fund being able to survive-the catch? You no longer hold the rights to that particular film-the gov does and allows every one to share and use as they see fit. If you wish to make other projects on the side to augument your income, you're welcome too sell as you see fit, with the gov getting a percentage. You would hold rights to these films, however, you must provide a reasonable reason to deny permission, and the amount you ask for royalties would capped.
So, in a nutshell-I defined work sent to gov every two months. Other works you can sell yourself, gov gets percentage and limited compensation. You in turn get X amount of dollars to survive on comfortably from the gov, in effect getting "paid" for your work.
Would we as filmmakers be happy about this arrangement? I say I'd seriously have to consider it if it meant I could feed and raise myself and my family comfortably. We would be getting paid for our work, so we aren't "Giving it away", but what good would piracy do in this case? All that would be shared mostly is stuff that everyone has the right too anyway I would think.
I'd like to keep the discussion related to piracy, and leave out "socialist" argument-I'm not here to argue politics
I have a house to pay for and two teenaged kids who eat me out of house and home, plus all of the high school related fees... and I'm in college paying for that as well...
Personally, I need the money to keep moving forward... I can keep making the same stuff for nearly free, but my camera is End-Of-Lifed by canon, so I can't get it fixed if it breaks... and at that point, I quit filmmaking if there's no income for replacing the camera.
Tinelera: I love that plan! It's a way for us to keep making money and a way for the government to generate a revenue stream to fix the hemmoraging economy
Does that fee apply to the 50ish folks I tend to have on set for every production (currently volunteers, but we're trying to get to the point where it can be paid for everyone)?Okay, I'm speaking from a fine artist perspective who's never made a living from my art. I believe being *fairly compensated* for a particular work, and *making a living* from a particular art are wholly different animals. If you make a living from this, or any, artform and you sustain a family then, of course, your end goal is different than mine. I, for one, know of very, VERY few people making a living solely from their vocation...and that encompasses many disciplines of the visual arts. As I said, I am most probably projecting, and to each their own.
In regards to Tinalera's suggestion...if only!! I would love for such a system but bottom line, you will always have taxpayers/constituents who won't want their money delegated to any artistic endeavour...that was proven when the National Endowment for the Arts, as a result of representative lobbying, disposed of their awards to individual artists (except through some proxy granting agencies~which means further application considerations). Another issue would be one of quality, and who determines this....should it be a simple welfare plan for anyone making a simple mark on a piece of paper, etc? Demmark, I believe had, and may still have such a lifetime granting program for artists. While I've no links, anecdotal information suggests that the worse caliber of crap (totally subjective, of course, and may I add that I feel any form of expression is *valuable* to the pot of human information) ever to see light of day came to fruition from this program. Personally, I love to see it, but in practical terms...there would be too much red-tape which translates into more money spent on regulating such a program than granting to deserving parties. All, imo, of course.
Last edited:
I think there's a matter of scale in the arts though. Buying a $15 paint brush is not the same as buying a $500 light. I've purchased all my own equipment and to move forward, I need to purchase higher quality equipment as my ability overwhelms the equipment I currently use. The clamp lights I used to use religiously (which replaced my worklights) now sit in a box and I use my 500w scoops from Smith and Victor... Those are beginning to become limiting as well now that I know more about lighting control and have used better fixtures.
In music, you have your instrument and time is what you spend on it... Upgrades are few and far between (until you've made money performing). Painting is just another canvas, some paints and the rest tends to be collected $5-$25 at a time.
Sculpture is reasonable depending on what kind you do (additive vs. subtractive).
Film is the only one that you can barely afford to get started without a major investment financially. And if I'm making money at film, the others on my set should be getting paid as well. Whereas other arts are much more individual oriented tasks, filmmaking tends toward the massively cooperative type of effort.
These factors (my $15,000-ish investment in equipment and the involvement of 30-40 people / shoot) make me need film to eventually become something I can make a living doing.
In music, you have your instrument and time is what you spend on it... Upgrades are few and far between (until you've made money performing). Painting is just another canvas, some paints and the rest tends to be collected $5-$25 at a time.
Sculpture is reasonable depending on what kind you do (additive vs. subtractive).
Film is the only one that you can barely afford to get started without a major investment financially. And if I'm making money at film, the others on my set should be getting paid as well. Whereas other arts are much more individual oriented tasks, filmmaking tends toward the massively cooperative type of effort.
These factors (my $15,000-ish investment in equipment and the involvement of 30-40 people / shoot) make me need film to eventually become something I can make a living doing.
I don't necessarily agree in light of the costs of raw materials being cheaper because of the nature of the discipline. You can spend a few hundred bucks on a brush or a specific pigment. You can rent film equipment at a local coop, which is exactly what I did until I could take out a loan for a camera. My current project ( a hand drawn animation ) could have cost me a 1000 bucks for the paper punch (registration) alone. Factor in acetate cels and pigments and all the peripherals I would need had I gone the traditional route, well yep, I could never have attempted it. I substituted a three hole punch and individual metal registration tabs I was given at a photo tech job. I use typewriting, bond paper and any pigment I can get my hands on, including crayons. My biggest expense would be my labour, of which I have donated, in-kind, lol . If peeps want to get a project done, they will use whatever they have access to, and make the best of their materials.
I do, however agree with you in regards to film's collaborative medium (precisely why I went with animation... it's me and my sound guy/editor/musician) and your contemporaries' right for compensation. Having a crew for a film is far more likely than having a crew to screen paintings or dolly in a piece of marble, but it's also possible to have a coterie of assistants in the fine arts.
I do wish you, and everyone who has a genuine love for the discipline, the best, AND the day when we can all make a living from what we love to do. To paraphrase what Joseph Campbell once said, follow your bliss and the money will come...hope it's true.
I do, however agree with you in regards to film's collaborative medium (precisely why I went with animation... it's me and my sound guy/editor/musician) and your contemporaries' right for compensation. Having a crew for a film is far more likely than having a crew to screen paintings or dolly in a piece of marble, but it's also possible to have a coterie of assistants in the fine arts.
I do wish you, and everyone who has a genuine love for the discipline, the best, AND the day when we can all make a living from what we love to do. To paraphrase what Joseph Campbell once said, follow your bliss and the money will come...hope it's true.
Thank you for responses Knightly and Bird
Just wanted to say about the taxpayer funding the arts-ah, in my Utopia taxes would be minimal because everything pays for everything else in a nice, tidy, fully enclosed economic cycle (like I said, Pie in the sky_
Of course that leads to the idea-what about factory work and whatnot, people HAVE to do those jobs(unless there are people who enjoy it? I know someone who works on the railroad and he absolutely LOVES his job-maybe there are people who would "like" to do factorywork)
As far as costs, I can see once you want to try and make "good" money at films, its a costly investment for people, equipment, ect, compared to writing, painting ect(both of which I do). I write short fiction and paint with Acrylics (too nervous to try oils yet lol). Also my slow build into mask making(I guess that's art as well?) is another avenue.
Now, try to get back topic. Aside from the inherent problems with my idea, do you think it would cut down on piracy?
Just wanted to say about the taxpayer funding the arts-ah, in my Utopia taxes would be minimal because everything pays for everything else in a nice, tidy, fully enclosed economic cycle (like I said, Pie in the sky
_Of course that leads to the idea-what about factory work and whatnot, people HAVE to do those jobs(unless there are people who enjoy it? I know someone who works on the railroad and he absolutely LOVES his job-maybe there are people who would "like" to do factorywork
)As far as costs, I can see once you want to try and make "good" money at films, its a costly investment for people, equipment, ect, compared to writing, painting ect(both of which I do). I write short fiction and paint with Acrylics (too nervous to try oils yet lol). Also my slow build into mask making(I guess that's art as well?) is another avenue.
Now, try to get back topic. Aside from the inherent problems with my idea, do you think it would cut down on piracy?
Alright... Was going to hold off from saying this but this thread keeps going on and on.
I've read a majority of this thread and skimmed over the rest. Seems to me this is what the bottom line is. People are complaining about piracy. They are complaining that when they make a film, it gets ripped and thrown on a torrent site for the masses to download. That about sums it up.
1. People need to start using their heads instead of sitting back and complaining. If there is a problem, fix it. There's always a solution to a problem!
2. If you are making zero money from your film, regardless if it is or isn't on torrent sites, then it's probably not that great of a movie. On top of it not being a great or interesting film but you aren't trying hard enough to get it out to the masses. You can argue this all you want but most of the time, it's true.
Alright, here's the key to solving a problem. THINK INSIDE THE BOX. Let me say that again. THINK INSIDE THE BOX!!!!
Who the heck cares if a torrent site has a 700MB digital file of your movie? That shouldn't matter one bit.
What people need to start doing is creating more than just an hour and a half movie. People need to start creating an experience. When you learn to create more than just an hour and a half movie then it's not going to matter if your movie is being pirated because all they are pirating is part of the experience. Not the entire thing.
Here's a simple way of putting it. HERE'S THE SECRET!
Let's say you make a war movie like I did. Be creative... This is where I say, THINK INSIDE THE BOX. Make the packaging unique. People can't download the packaging from a torrent site... That's something you HAVE TO BUY. Sell the movie in a cheap replication of an old World War II ammo box. Do you know how awesome that would be to own!?! You buy a movie and the dvd/case comes packaged in a miniature ammo case. Not only does it come inside an ammo case but it comes with customized Dog Tags! The person's name who bought the movie is on the dog tags. You people need to be more creative and start using that noggin of yours!
So instead of complaining about your movie being pirated on torrent sites start doing something about it. Because in reality, it doesn't matter.
Start putting in the effort to make your release unique, creative, etc. Because like I said, you can only download digital files, but you can't download a custom experience. Give people a reason to buy!
I've read a majority of this thread and skimmed over the rest. Seems to me this is what the bottom line is. People are complaining about piracy. They are complaining that when they make a film, it gets ripped and thrown on a torrent site for the masses to download. That about sums it up.
1. People need to start using their heads instead of sitting back and complaining. If there is a problem, fix it. There's always a solution to a problem!
2. If you are making zero money from your film, regardless if it is or isn't on torrent sites, then it's probably not that great of a movie. On top of it not being a great or interesting film but you aren't trying hard enough to get it out to the masses. You can argue this all you want but most of the time, it's true.
Alright, here's the key to solving a problem. THINK INSIDE THE BOX. Let me say that again. THINK INSIDE THE BOX!!!!
Who the heck cares if a torrent site has a 700MB digital file of your movie? That shouldn't matter one bit.
What people need to start doing is creating more than just an hour and a half movie. People need to start creating an experience. When you learn to create more than just an hour and a half movie then it's not going to matter if your movie is being pirated because all they are pirating is part of the experience. Not the entire thing.
Here's a simple way of putting it. HERE'S THE SECRET!
Let's say you make a war movie like I did. Be creative... This is where I say, THINK INSIDE THE BOX. Make the packaging unique. People can't download the packaging from a torrent site... That's something you HAVE TO BUY. Sell the movie in a cheap replication of an old World War II ammo box. Do you know how awesome that would be to own!?! You buy a movie and the dvd/case comes packaged in a miniature ammo case. Not only does it come inside an ammo case but it comes with customized Dog Tags! The person's name who bought the movie is on the dog tags. You people need to be more creative and start using that noggin of yours!
So instead of complaining about your movie being pirated on torrent sites start doing something about it. Because in reality, it doesn't matter.
Start putting in the effort to make your release unique, creative, etc. Because like I said, you can only download digital files, but you can't download a custom experience. Give people a reason to buy!
No, that is not the point. If it was my short films I made for nothing, I wouldn't care. For my feature films, significant amounts of money were spent. And the point is that distributors and myself lose money from it being on a torrent site. The relevance is in the lost revenue, not that people are huffing and puffing that their movie has a new venue.
I was making money from the film in foreign territories like Japan, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemborg, Thailand, Poland, etc. Then it got on the torrent sites and the other territories said they weren't interested because it was already available to their customers for free online via torrent sites.
I got print mentions in FANGORIA, RUE MORGUE, and over a dozen international film magazines. None of which countered the piracy.
It matters to the people acquire movies for distribution. The home video market is very different now. With Hollywood Video and Blockbuster on the ropes, as well as Best Buy and Wal-mart only buying a FRACTION the number of DVD titles they did even 5 years ago, getting a return on investment is harder than it used to be. Thanks to Internet Piracy directly, foreign buyers are not picking up titles because they are not going to make as much money making DVD's and selling them in their countries because people there already have access to the movie for free.
So I know it doesn't appear to matter, as you are describing self distributing a movie, but if you are going to try to make back a few hundred thousand dollars, it isn't simply a matter of making more original packaging. Having worked with real distributors, you have to know that you have no control over those things like packaging, DVD art, how it's marketed etc., especially in a foreign territory.
Really, I think the attitudes towards piracy directly relate to the amount of money being spent on the movie. If you're only out a meager $10,000 for a feature, it doesn't matter that much. You might feel differently when you have 10 to 40 times that amount of money on the line.
1. The middle man is dying off. So why bother with distribution!? If making money is your argument then it doesn't matter considering your movie is on torrents and you're not making any money through distribution as it is. So that leaves me asking again, why are you even using a middle man.
2. Hundreds of thousands of dollars? Is this your personal pot of money? doubtful.
It's funny. People put their heart and soul (supposedly) into a movie and they seek a middle man (distribution). Their movie leaks and is pirated on torrents therefore they make no money through distribution. Yet since they have distribution they lose creative merit.... "you have to know that you have no control over those things like packaging, DVD art, how it's marketed etc., especially in a foreign territory."
baffles me to be honest. Really baffles me.
2. Hundreds of thousands of dollars? Is this your personal pot of money? doubtful.
It's funny. People put their heart and soul (supposedly) into a movie and they seek a middle man (distribution). Their movie leaks and is pirated on torrents therefore they make no money through distribution. Yet since they have distribution they lose creative merit.... "you have to know that you have no control over those things like packaging, DVD art, how it's marketed etc., especially in a foreign territory."
baffles me to be honest. Really baffles me.
I already posted a pretty good solution for the piracy problem here. The problems is that most people in this industry are used to be considered GODS and when they're threatened with a huge uncontrollable force like piracy, they act like a bunch of spoiled children. They should have some business classes in Harvard or good schools to teach them how to deal with a business that is starting to fall apart and how to solve this problem. But while these "dinosaurs" think they still are ruling, they will end up slowly imploding their selves, just like the music industry. But it's going to be worse, because movies cost a lot more money than music.
The movie industry is not going down faster because of the difficulty people have to connect computers to their televisions. Once this is solved, prepare for the worst!
People in the movie industry should start making the changes below as fast as they can.
Here's the post:
Make distribution of movies easier with online content and country-free, with very low prices correlated to a gain in demand and piracy will go away. Only miserable people would not buy the movies for a few bucks. Maybe bonuses for watching more movies would grant you free hard copy versions that you may choose from.
Bittorrent with seeded sponsorship would be a great way of reducing costs for renting movies.
Better packaging is nice, but only for movie nerds, not ordinary people. Those will learn to love it on hard disks or other devices with no paper or plastic. Stop thinking short-term, guys!
Cheers!
In your proposal, all works (made with the taxpayer's monies) would be public domain. Piracy would not have a relevant definition in such a plan...one cannot pirate something which would be given (essentially) to the whole constituency.
(Just for the record, currently, works made with gov't funding remain the sole property of the artist who is free to capitalize on said project, but the project must contain noted credits of these grant awards...ie:film must have note in credits, an exhibit usually must note on showing cards/brochure...you know, 'made possible, in part, by a grant from, blah blah blah..." ).
Very related. I'm saying there is no way we will ever get rid of it. No chance in hell. Filmmakers will never get that step ahead of pirates. Not possible. I'm not saying piracy is morally justifiable; I'm saying you can't beat it.
Shit yeah, the common cold kills people (maybe not so much in the U.S., but it does kill). The flu is considerably worse. Healthy immune system or not, the point I make is that we can't and will never get rid of it. By the way, we're off on a major tangent here, but the Chinese are no closer to "curing" the common cold than we are. It's not possible to "cure" it -- that's my point. The virus mutates WAY more fast than we could even dream of concocting new treatments.
Remember when they said that tape-cassettes would ruin the music industry? Then it was Napster that would ruin the music industry. Seems to me like they're doing just fine.
Chill out Stewart-Littles, the sky ain't falling. People will always pirate movies. You won't be able to stop them. Those crafty little nerds spend more time trying to figure out how to steal your work than you do on crafting said work. Luckily, those crafty little nerds are a small minority. Most people either prefer to see the real deal, or they're too lazy to go out of their way to get the pirated copy, when the legit copy is so easy to get from Netflix. Hollywood ain't about to go belly-up, and the bridge between studios and indie filmmakers shrinks a little more every year. Personally, I think we've got it good.