Torrents

[ussinners]

Us Sinners did not cost a lot to make. But, the little it did, I haven't gotten most of it back.

The first time I saw a torrent listing was when I first started sending out screeners and I got pissed. I was told by people "in the know" that it might be listed, but that doesn't mean it's actually there. It's just listed so you'll sign up and pay to join the site.

Now I see it on quite a few torrent sites and all have to get paid to download it.

Shouldn't these sites be held accountable for the movies they're giving away for free illegally? i know they don't actually house the files themselves, they're just the middle man. But, they're the middle man profiting from product they do not own.

I know it seems futile to even be bothered by something like this. But, damn it I can use some money and these people might be getting cash that could be going to me.

It seems if a group of film makers who weren't rich got together and brought suits against these sites, the courts and public opinion would be heavily on the side of the starving artists and not the thieves.

Just a thought.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Well, you can watch most new release shows on Hulu for free with ads, you can buy them for $3 for iTunes, you can digitally rent a Movie for about $6 or buy it for $15-20. You can also drive to the gas station and rent a DVD for $1.

It's not about accessibility, it's about price and commercials. You can find a link to megaupload (or you could) to watch a show without commercials, you can download the movie for free. Maybe there is a creative way to do it, but right now it looks like people making that argument expect Universal to stream their library for free. Sony does with some on crackle with commercials. But free means that you'll be bombarded with even more ads at lower and lower production values. It's not a win-win.

Free market usually sorts this stuff out. If someone has a great idea for distribution it usually wins out, like iTunes. Piracy bypasses that and destroys room for innovation. If there was no piracy, at all, then a lack in DVD sales may drive studios to release them for less, or a lack of theater goers may drive down ticket prices. With piracy in the equation, that doesn't work, because like with any retail item as stealing increases, prices have to go up to cover losses.

 

[josh-ozirigpro]

Well, you can watch most new release shows on Hulu for free with ads, you can buy them for $3 for iTunes, you can digitally rent a Movie for about $6 or buy it for $15-20. You can also drive to the gas station and rent a DVD for $1.

But I can't. I live in Australia. We don't have access to Hulu here. Same with the digital renting. AFAIK iTunes is the only place which has a decent offering and I refuse to have that bloatware on my computer. So I'm stuck with renting or watching at the movies.

Service issue

If someone has a great idea for distribution it usually wins out, like iTunes. Piracy bypasses that and destroys room for innovation.

I would argue that it's the other way around - I'm fairly certain that iTunes was developed as a direct opposition to piracy.

I've always been a fan of thinking that people are inherently good - they will do the right thing if you give them the opportunity to. And as we can see with the statistics of distribution models like Steam and iTunes, this seems to be true.

And as for destroying innovation?
Well, I'd rather get $1 from an honest person than have that person pirate and end up with nothing.
If piracy is costing us "so much" then surely it makes good business sense to develop a system which offers a competitive solution.
If Joey from down the street was undercutting your editing business by getting his grandma to cut the videos for free, wouldn't you simply use that as an excuse for creating a better product to offer to your customers (and therefore convince them to go with you instead)?

 

[NickSoares]

If piracy is costing us "so much" then surely it makes good business sense to develop a system which offers a competitive solution.

getting warmer

 

[josh-ozirigpro]

getting warmer

By offering service with a smile

 

[NickSoares]

OK, but lets be realistic here - SOPA, needs to rewrite there entire act.

Here is how I feel it should be plain and simple

If a website is giving away free movies illegally - They should get 3 warnings (1 every 3 days) on the 9th day and they have not complied to stop the theft. There service provider can legally be shot down.

If they do get in contact, then we give them extensions to fix the problem, as problems do happen.

I a third part is hosting an illegal video, the third party is hosting material that is pirated (like a website with an embedded youtube link) SOPA leaves them alone and doesnt touch there site, SOPA goes after youtube (not to shut down youtube) but to have them remove the video from there server.

So that covers US lol --- Im to tired to figure out what to do with international site, someone continue this with their thoughts please need sleep. lol

 

[josh-ozirigpro]

I a third part is hosting an illegal video, the third party is hosting material that is pirated (like a website with an embedded youtube link) SOPA leaves them alone and doesnt touch there site, SOPA goes after youtube (not to shut down youtube) but to have them remove the video from there server.

The DMCA already has provisions for that. Specifically, the safe harbor clause protects Google from being sued into the ground everytime a user uploads a video that infringes copyright.

Even worse, there's already rampant abuse of the DMCA takedown system -- you've seen where UMG successfully had a MegaUpload video taken down from YouTube, despite having no claim to any of the copyright (it was original content, for god's sake!)??

So I can't imagine what'll happen when it's a "shoot first, ask later" scenario as intended via SOPA.

But enough arguing - I think we could go round and round in circles back and forth all night long if we had to!

Here's my solution - as far fetched as it seems, if this happens, I want loyalties down the track
1.) An online digital distribution system, NO global locking. Movies released same day as they come out in cinemas. Ability to "see once" (ala the cinema), rent or buy it.

2.) Removal of DRM. Tie the movie to the buyer's account ala Steam - must be signed in to access the library. Can be redownloaded as many times as necessary. Buyer also has access to the same movie in different sizes for different devices (iPad 67, Xbox 1249, PS50 [I imagine that's how long it'll take for the studios to stop bickering, haha])

3.) User gets to watch the first 15 minutes of feature length movies. If they don't like it, they don't have to pay. If they do, awesome.

4.) Movies release extras along with it (consider this the "free money") ala what you get on a DVD... wallpapers, sound track, movie posters, making of, dvd commentary etc. Charge a nominal amount (99c, $1.99, think App style pricing for the "yeah, why not?" sort of sale)

5.) Purchasing a DVD entitles you to a free digital copy (SOME guys do this already... SOME!)

6.) Prices reflect the actual cost of the item/service. For instance, I expect to pay 30% less for a digital copy than I would over a physical copy. Likewise, I expect to pay more for a physical copy. I expect to pay less to watch a new release movie in my own home than I do if I went to the cinema.

Just imagine three key points:
1.) The huge market that you've just opened up.
2.) The ability for both large AND small products to compete on a level playing ground
3.) The huge increase in revenue as movies now have a similar platform to compete for our attention as Music (iTunes) and Games (Steam).

This won't happen, mind you, because the big studios don't want change.
That's why they fight it so hard.. because they know that their business model is essentially parasitical - there's no way they would kill their "formula" to profits.

But oh boy would I love to see the first time this system comes out. I'm definitely going to be buying stock in whoever manages to convince the Big 6 to go with that.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Josh, as nice as I can possibly say it, I don't think your 6 point stratgey would work at all...

1. Global releases are planned at different dates so that films can be marketed well in each respective country. They may hit the US first, see how it does, and decide what to spend overseas. Also, it's usually a different distribution company from region to region. Having American companies (or European for their releases, whatever) is going to step on a lot of international toes. Theaters, who are already struggling, aren't going to be too happy about a DVD/online simultaneous release either. If it's not avaiable in your area, if you don't like going to the theater, then don't watch it. Again, it's not anyone's God-given right to watch anything ever released.

2. Having a file tied to your account so you have to be signed in to watch it is DRM.

3. Many sites offer this feature already. Usually at 2 or 5 minutes though. Seriously though, you don't get to eat a 1/5 of a cake, decide you don't like it and get yourmoney back for it?

4. No problem with that. I don't see that many people biting. A special edition DVD sells more as a collector piece with a shiny box than it does fit bonus content. Everyone of my friend's outside of the film world never listens to commentary or anything.

5. Again, nobody is entitled to anything. If someone wants to offer it, that's fine. If you want to rip one that doesn't for your iPod, that's fine too. The ease of it shouldn't be legally enforced...

6. DVDs when printed hundreds of thousands of times cost pennies to make. The content of the DVDs is what's in question. Gotta remember too, when you buy something off iTunes revenue is being split between the owner and apple, just like the full $25 of the DVD doesn't go to best buy. As far as theater prices being the same, that's nuts! At a theater, you're paying for one person to see the movie once on a gigantic screen with excellent sound for about $10. With a DVD or digital download, you're paying for the right to watch the movie as much as you want, with as many people that you can cram around the screen you bought separately at the same time. As long as you aren't showing it publicly that is. To demand that the two things be priced so that your unlimited view/people option is less than a single time/single person ticket is a little unrealistic. If anything, the DVD should (and does) cost more. When you take 4 people to the theater vs 4 people watching at home, then the DVD does cost clear like you want.

Again, nobody is entitled to anything movie-wise. How would you feel if a guy robbed your house and passed it off as "well he didn't want to sell me his TV for $10 so it's ok for me to go in and take it."

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Is this comment directed towards me?

No, that was a response to SonnyBoo's post above - I think you just replied before I did.

Josh, I have had real world experience with this first hand. There was a specific day that our sales dropped, and after doing some research, we google searched "name of movie" and google's new algorithm had put a torrent site #1 for the search of "my movie- for sale" - Do you not think that people that were searching for my film didnt downloaded my movie for free? Guess what, the next week I got a call from a friend who said "Hey Nick, I was going to purchase your movie online, but I got it in a torrent file." (yes I got pissed) This was a FRIEND, can you imagine around the world?

So here's some questions that are directed at you: How much did your sales drop, and did they stay consistently down? Were these DVD sales, or download sales? Were both affected equally, and at the same time? Was the torrent available before your sales dropped? What was it's rank on google before your sales dropped? Where was your website for the film ranked for that search term, both before and after? Are your paying customers primarily finding your film by searching for "my movie - for sale" on google? What was the ranking of the torrent file when people searched just for the name of your film? In your website analytics, what were the top keywords and phrases people used to find your film? Where did the torrent show up in those results relative to your site? When you asked your 'friend' why he would download your movie illegally when he knew the impact that had on you, what was his response?

Of course you can sell the same movie to someone who is willing to pay, but why would they be willing if they can get it for free? Especially in the illegal (in every definition) pirating of easy downloads?

You answered this yourself - you said you've spent $200 on buying Peter Gabriel material in recent years. I'm sure you could have easily found torrents for all of those and downloaded them for free - but you didn't. So the availability of a free copy didn't stop you from paying for the same material. The question is valid, but you're assuming the only answer is 'they wouldn't' when you have firsthand experience that the opposite is true. So the real question is - knowing that you, and obviously some others, are willing to buy something even when it's available for free, what can you do to convince more people to do the same?

It's a little crazy to be pro-piracy and plan to make money in filmmaking.

Let me be absolutely clear - I am not pro-piracy. But it's also absolutely clear to me that after more than a decade's worth of attempts at stopping it through technology, litigation, policy and law enforcement - all of which have had little or no effect - it's completely unrealistic to believe that a solution is about to pop up which will magically stop it.

So I find it a waste of time to fantasize about someone else stopping it, and instead choose to focus on what independent creators can actually do today to maximize their own sales despite the inevitable presence of piracy. It may feel good to rail against the availability of torrents of your film, but it does nothing to actually improve the situation - whereas there are a lot of things indie filmmakers could actively be doing to improve the chances that someone chooses to buy their film rather than download it illegally.

 

[Dreadylocks]

On a light note, am the only one who thinks it's humorous that the pro-piracy argument is coming from a guy descended from criminals?

no offense

 

[Dreadylocks]

If a website is giving away free movies illegally - They should get 3 warnings (1 every 3 days) on the 9th day and they have not complied to stop the theft. There service provider can legally be shot down.

I sincerely hope you meant to say shut down.

 

[JoshL]

I sincerely hope you meant to say shut down.

 

[josh-ozirigpro]

On a light note, am the only one who thinks it's humorous that the pro-piracy argument is coming from a guy descended from criminals?

no offense

Bwahaahahaha.
Better watch out or I'll come over with my suit of armor and start breaking arms

@Paul

You're right - these points are just a pipedream at best, but they're moving in the right direction.
Your rebuttals raise an important aspect as well - the fact that the current big players are not going to relinquish their positions willingly (that is, distribution, cinemas, etc.) as this would dramatically cut into their CURRENT model revenue.

However, I can't see anything BUT this happening in the next 5 to 10 years.
There's been a lot of discussion about whether Blu-Rays will be the last physical media, and with Moore's Law and the rate of innovation I can see that we will move to a digital medium very very soon.

If it's not avaiable in your area, if you don't like going to the theater, then don't watch it. Again, it's not anyone's God-given right to watch anything ever released.

As to whether or not it's a "right" to watch a movie. No, of course it isn't. But that's like saying nobody has a right to use the internet. They don't, but good luck trying to stop them! It's the same thing here - you can make that argument, or you could go with it and open up a huge new market which would make up for volume in what you lack in price.

What you're saying is that if they don't like the currently model, well, too bad. Which is exactly why people would pirate it. See how the two are connected?? You're not giving the people "what they want", you're telling them "this is how it is, if you don't like it, go somewhere else." And they do - The Pirate Bay!

Seriously though, you don't get to eat a 1/5 of a cake, decide you don't like it and get yourmoney back for it?

Well, a cake is a physical object which costs time and money to produce. Once it's eaten, it's gone. A 15 minute "extended trailer" of a movie has the same inherent value as a trial version of a program (i.e: nothing). It doesn't cost you anything to give that 15 minute (or 10 minute or 5 minute, or whatever) sample, but it may translate into a sale which you otherwise might not have had. It shows respect for the end user by going "hey, we know that we can trick you with a bajillion dollars worth of fancy marketing and 24 hour ads, but we actually want you to enjoy this piece so you will come back for more."

2. Having a file tied to your account so you have to be signed in to watch it is DRM.

I meant that you would have your library ala iTunes. You don't need to be signed in to watch it. It just reduces the chance of someone going "hey, here's the password for my 1000 movie library". Look at Steam - specific clauses against sharing of accounts has been very effective. I'm talking more about removing the latest version of SecuRom and those "sorry, you've used this on 5 devices" type of thing. Because DRM is only included when you buy it. It never stops the crackers from getting the goods, as the releases are still getting out, so the only people hurt are those who actually paid for it. Seems rather backwards to me!

With regards to the collector's items, you're also right. But I don't see why they can't still release them. We still have fancy versions of albums and you can still buy the overpriced ULTIMATE EDITION of Call of Duty =P

To demand that the two things be priced so that your unlimited view/people option is less than a single time/single person ticket is a little unrealistic. If anything, the DVD should (and does) cost more. When you take 4 people to the theater vs 4 people watching at home, then the DVD does cost clear like you want.

Really? You might, at best, have your 4 person family watch it. Maybe a party every now and then? Back when we went out as a family, it would cost us anywhere from $45 to $60 to watch a movie, depending on the day (discount ticket prices). For a lot of people in this economy, that isn't feasible, so they wait until the DVD comes out or pirate it. Sure, you may be "giving it away" to the extra people, but again, wouldn't you rather have a sale than a pirate get it for free and do it anyway??

Again, nobody is entitled to anything movie-wise. How would you feel if a guy robbed your house and passed it off as "well he didn't want to sell me his TV for $10 so it's ok for me to go in and take it."

It's more like "Hey here's a TV, nope, you can't have it. You have to pay us $15 every time you want to use it, unless you wait 3 months, and then you can pay us $450 for it. What's that? You want to move it to your lounge? Hmm, that's gonna cost you a license!"

Again, please don't confuse the cost of a physical item to that of a digital item.

 

[scottspears]

I've been wrapped up in work, so I've been absent from this thread for a bit.

Here's an example of piracy at work. A while back, I was talking to my mother-in-law, whom I love dearly, and she said she just saw a recent release movie. I asked where did you see it? At home. Hmmm, how'd you do that, it's not on DVD yet? Ohhh, somebody down the street gave me a pirated DVD. Now, I cannot yell at my mother-in-law, whom I love dearly, but this is how it works. She doesn't really think about the impact of what she's doing. She was thinking it was a big Hollywood film and they won't miss my $8 for a ticket or $4 for a rental or my .29 cents for the sale to Cinemax, but it trickles down. Sony losses millions to piracy. Now nobody at Sony directly suffers. They take home their chunky salaries. Where it hits is at Sony Classics who now has less to buy some cool indie movies and we lose a market.

Maybe she would have seen it on the big screen, maybe not. Maybe later down the road she would have rented the DVD. If not that maybe he would have subscribed to HBO or Showtime and caught it. All of these were possible sales for our movie. It is insidious. It steals from us so we cannot make a living doing what we love.

I know a lot of folks who have scrapped together the money to make their first feature. It gets released and they don't make their money back. They cannot go back to their investors and ask for me because they lost money. No second movie. No career for them. No jobs for DPs, grips, gaffers, boom ops...etc. They all take day jobs and make a 48 Hr movie once a year to feed their inner filmmaker.

This is how it happens. This is why dislike torrents.

 

[PaulGriffith]

I hear you scott. I've been arguing against the "entitlement" mentality, ignorance is just as big of a problem.

It's more like "Hey here's a TV, nope, you can't have it. You have to pay us $15 every time you want to use it, unless you wait 3 months, and then you can pay us $450 for it. What's that? You want to move it to your lounge? Hmm, that's gonna cost you a license!"

Again, please don't confuse the cost of a physical item to that of a digital item.

Just to make sure, no hard feelings on my part and no offense meant during the debate. Look at the statement though. What's wrong with paying up front each time you see something? If you want it forever, wait three months. That's not a big deal, and if everyone agrees with you and stops going to the theater, then the free market will change itself. Not when there's piracy affecting the real outcome though.

And you're right, I shouldn't confuse the cost of a $450 TV that cost somewhere between $0.01 and $449.99 and a factory worker a certain amount of hours to make with a movie that costs $150,000,000.00, a year or two of the director's, writer's and producer's time, about 50-180 days of a production crew of 50-150 and post production team of 5-300 about 5 months time (depending on how much 3D is in there) and if it is a SD Animated movie, a few months on a render farm, plus another $50-150 million in advertising. Nobody should confuse the two. Granted, some theater releases are made for closer to 20 million and much less people, and the occasional $100k indie flick makes the cut. Still, when you look at the cost, is a $10 ticket unreasonable? Is a theater full of 400 people paying $10 each unreasonable? I don't think so. If you do, then that $1 rental to see the same expensive movie is just a few months away.

There's no way to excuse piracy, just like there's no way to excuse the guy stealing a TV from your house or shoplifting at the mall. It's criminal all around.

 

[josh-ozirigpro]

Just to make sure, no hard feelings on my part and no offense meant during the debate. Look at the statement though.

Of course not Discussion is good!

There's no way to excuse piracy, just like there's no way to excuse the guy stealing a TV from your house or shoplifting at the mall. It's criminal all around.

Nobody is excusing piracy - that's definitely not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm getting at is that piracy is here to stay and unless some drastic changes to the current model are enacted, the status quo will continue... i.e: studios losing big dollars to piracy.

Now, nobody wants that as we are all reliant on that business continuing, so it's in our best interest to understand how we can work out a solution that fixes the problem.

The specifics of how that occurs is something up for debate, but it would be akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand to deny that there's a problem. I mean, something has to give - either we find creative ways to increase revenue or we start facing the fact that those multi million dollar budgets will no longer be sustainable.

I know which option I would prefer

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I know a lot of folks who have scrapped together the money to make their first feature. It gets released and they don't make their money back. They cannot go back to their investors and ask for me because they lost money. No second movie. No career for them. No jobs for DPs, grips, gaffers, boom ops...etc. They all take day jobs and make a 48 Hr movie once a year to feed their inner filmmaker.

This is how it happens. This is why dislike torrents.

When was this golden age of independent cinema when most first time filmmakers made money with their first feature? You've basically just described the typical experience of the average first-time independent filmmaker over the last 50 years - and it's not because of 'torrents'. The big difference in the last decade or so is that the bar has been lowered for how much money folks need to scrape together for their first feature, so there are far more first features being made. Oh, and that the 48 hour projects, and other opportunities to continue making short films cheaply, exist and allow people who don't make a career out of it to continue doing filmmaking as a hobby.

 

[Blade_Jones]

it's not because of 'torrents'.

It's many factors INCLUDING file sharing that have hurt the filmmaker.

 

[scottspears]

When was this golden age of independent cinema when most first time filmmakers made money with their first feature? You've basically just described the typical experience of the average first-time independent filmmaker over the last 50 years - and it's not because of 'torrents'. The big difference in the last decade or so is that the bar has been lowered for how much money folks need to scrape together for their first feature, so there are far more first features being made. Oh, and that the 48 hour projects, and other opportunities to continue making short films cheaply, exist and allow people who don't make a career out of it to continue doing filmmaking as a hobby.

That is true today, but in the mid to late 80s and up to 1991-92, a lot of money was made in home video through VHS sales. There were video stores everywhere. I remember reading about a $20,000 video feature called "Blood Cult" that raked in over $200,000. A Polonia brothers movie called "Feeders" made for under $10,000 got $60,000 and it showed its' budget. (I liked it, too.)

Yes there are tons of movies being made, but most of them are dreck or non-commercial. I'm talking about the movies that were made with a professional crew (people getting paid some kind "of close to" a living wage which are the many of the movies I shot) that get some kind of initial release. I typed in the name of a few movies I shot in the last decade that got a release and I can find each one of them on 8-15 torrent sites. That more than anything is killing indie movies and moviemakers. Netflix is a big factor too because they only buy a few DVD copies and with streaming that is going down. The death of the mom & pop video store and Blockbuster's shrinkage has not helped either.

Scott