Show menu
Shooting People
By continuing to browse this website you are agreeing to allow us to use cookies

Attention all you indie filmmakers re distribution by on-line VOD

My name is Ray Brady. I've written and directed eight indie features and have produced several more. Since I'm presently building web awareness for my next indie feature "Horror Tales" (presently in production with four stories of the seven production blocks now shot with the fifth shooting in August), I decided to throw a load of my old movies up on-line as video on demand titles (nearly all under one quid). I have just loaded five up on Vimeo, four up onto Amazon, and intend to add more in the next week or so, you can watch the trailers on shooting people also with links to inexpensive purchase options available.
Realising that VOD has greatly expanded in the last few years I wondered if any other shooters out there have recent experience with selling directly through i.e. Netflix, HuluPlus (USA only), Vudu, blinkbox, lovefilm, indiemoviesonline, Apple's itunes, SlingTV (USA only), Google Play & YouTube (any other not mentioned), who would care to share either on-line or confidentially, the pros & cons of their experiences working with these companies, then please do get in touch. I will also post this up on the discussion boards where hopefully shooters will be able to make continued updates to this possibly invaluable resource.
Always looking for collaborators for other other projects so don't be strangers and drop me a line.
Kindest regards Ray Brady

  • Hi Ray. Fascinating. This is where the industry is going, I think.

    I'm familiar with Vimeo and most of the others, but how have you uploaded to Amazon? Is it a Marketplace account you're selling DVDs from?

    As far as I'm aware, they haven't yet opened the market like they did with ebooks (though I pray for it every day).

    3 years ago
    • They did a few weeks ago, was hugely covered in the press, it's called Amazon Direct Video

      3 years ago
  • Ray, I hope you'll come back after 6 months or so and let us know what you've learned and how well you did with these new models of distribution. I know payouts on Netflix for indies is extremely low (with films with no stars and no theatrical), so I think we'd all be interested in hard numbers between payouts and views.

    3 years ago
  • I don't believe that VOD is the future if one expects people to pay or even go through the bother of the process of paying. Increasingly people don't want to pay anything at all for thier media. They'll pay for an occasion such as the cinema. Even commercial broadcast television is being challenged by both legitimate and pirate Internet channels. The annoying number and length of ad breaks, particularly in the USA has long since crossed the Rubicon. High quality Public Broadcasting will continue to thrive in those wealthier civilised places that still believe in social cooperation. For many though the future is totally free distribution of productions that meet with the highest standards, where piracy is welcomed. If any bright sparks can extrapolate how that business model can work, please keep it under your hat for as long as possible.

    3 years ago
  • Hola,
    I will do so, but it is vitally important that we share information through this community over the next few years. Until now distribution has been controlled by gates keepers, by sales agents and distributors, both while providing services, took large pieces of sales before the remainder eventually made its way to the filmmakers many months/years later. The well know tragic story of how Nic Powell and Stephen Woolley's 1992 film The Crying Game was a global smash hit taking over three hundred million dollars only for six million to make its way back to its two producers ages later and only after their company had been forced into liquidation waiting for profits to get back to them continues to haunt me decades later. Over the years I have completed feature films only to find I was only half way there, as often the marketing and selling of indie films was just as expensive and difficult as making them. Cash flow, for indie films makers is the difference sometimes between getting a film out there or it remaining unsold and languishing collecting dust on a shelf somewhere. When I finished Egression I was extremely excited, shot in the style of the Dardenne brothers I believed I had made my best film ever, but after submitting and failing to get into any of the top twenty or so top film festivals I ran out of money, with the recession hitting hard, formally strong art-house arms of all the main distribution firms closed and shut up shop almost over night. Without any known stars or festival exposure the film didn't secure distribution and a three year plan from conception to delivery failed because the market had changed so considerably when the film was finally ready to deliver. Now distribution has changed, sales revenues through an internet release can reach the films producers instantly, with a good film and an ingenious marketing campaign suddenly potentially filmmakers for the first time have an opportunity of making a return quickly and without major cuts being taken off by middlemen, using methods outside the system that has been locked in place since cinema started. Amazon Studios are buying world rights for films directly from the filmmakers, their pick-up deals are extremely favorable to the films producers, their support in marketing and promotion, very generous. Yes, presently they are buying from already established directors, but it is only a matter of time before they buy into and get behind some small indie film that will then seemingly come from nowhere as there is a story in a pick-up like this and good story travels well and gets repeated often especially through social networking, which would see the previously mentioned problem of marketing and promotion expenses dissolve away. The distribution market has begun to change and I for one see this as a very exciting time with great promise.

    3 years ago
    • I wish I could be as positive about Amazon as you. I hope you're right.

      As for studio indie arms closing up: it wasn't the recession at all. They closed up shop before then (at least the studios here in Los Angeles). The reason the stopped funding midrange films is simple: piracy. They needed to find a way to get asses back into the seats, so they poured all of their cash into tentpole films.

      3 years ago
  • Interesting that you should ask: I did feel as though we were missing a private or even semi-private forum to share experiences, terms, MGs, distributors, VOD earnings, etc. – which is why I started the private Facebook group British Independent Producers' Alliance. Ray (and others) you would be very welcome to join!

    3 years ago
    • There's also the private group on Facebook - "Film Distributors to stay away from and Why", which has made for some fascinating reading.

      3 years ago
    • I'm about to experiment with putting short film on different platforms. Will report back in time as well. Thank you David Hughes - I hope to join your Facebook group.

      3 years ago
    • Have sent you fb request as well

      3 years ago
    • Sent you a request also.

      3 years ago
  • I too would be very interested in your results a few months down the line.

    Good idea with the Facebook group David, I've put in my request to join ;)

    I do think as independent's we have to think differently with the ever changing climate. I do think VOD is great for us producers and we can spread bet with all the various platforms.
    I am however treating VOD as one avenue stream of income, I'm shooting a short and a feature next year to test my idea of another revenue stream(s) where everyone in our team can see a return. Everyone involved with the film from extras to producers will be given a marketing campaign template, be given their own Web page with their own custom link of the film for download and dvd etc, which they can email people on their email and social media lists. So basically every time they make a sale we can track it and they take a good percentage which they get monthly. I think we would see more sales this way as everyone has an incentive to shout about our movie. This also goes for pre-sales too, it's important to start early as possible. Call it a sales team or affiliates, or your very own sales agents, but this on top of VOD should, I hope, help. We'll find out next year.

    3 years ago
  • Hola all,
    Many thanks for the facebook group suggestions and invites promise to follow them all up as all information and, spread betting as many distribution avenues is a very sensible idea...but I would very much like to keep this thread mainly focussed on internet sales and self distribution rather than focussing on traditional sales agents etc as nothing has changed there, other than them trying to play catch-up with the latest technology and attempting to bolt it onto their existing contracts. I have to agree with John that the biggest problem hindering self distribution VOD is the fact that teens now expect all their content for free. TV has really suffered from the inclusion of intrusive and disruptive add breaks, to the point that people are switching off in droves or simply recording then fast forwarding through the add breaks, I do this my self on catch-up TV as well. So the add makers aren't really getting their messages across and will soon find away to stop this happening and move their advertising money elsewhere, I always expected some smart company to incorporate a sound compression filter that would recognize sudden massive changes in sound compression and then to cut out the adds when the compression level dropped (originally designed to wake people up so that they could pay attention to adverts), similarly this could be achieved on-line (any code writers out there), like the classic skip option on YouTube after five seconds of an advert starting, you have the option to bail to the content, thankfully. Why don't the advertisers simply go for a wham type static picture of their products held for two or three seconds with a tiny memorable fanfare and then cut straight to the content, I do not know, think logs, the short punchy ones are forgiveable but the long boring self aggrandising ones make you hate the company that wasn't smart enough to do any marketing in-house to find this out, definitely a detracting negative, rather than a positive brand placement. Surely tiny sponsored logo stings would be more memorable and definitely less detested than the long winded show boating epic adverts they try to force on the viewing public on TV. Anyway...some kind of half way house will eventually be figured out. Perhaps something harking back to the old American sponsor type add, but short and a mutually temporary beneficial alliance with the content maker, the sponsor paying the film maker for placing themselves alongside the film makers so that the end user, the consumer can get their content for free. Anyway I digress, keep the VOD prices low (I'm not sure how low you can go before the system fails to be profitable for anyone (any figures from anyone in the know here would be very greatly appreciated). Like the pound shops model of business, namely high volumes low margins. We have seen from YouTube that volumes can be enormous (in the millions) if only they could work out a fair and realistic payment for feature film content from the amount they make from advertises, I would then consider that as, even twenty five pence per movie soon adds up when movies are being given away free. Niche audiences are def another way to go, I personally avoid the summer tent pole movies as I rather pay as much to Mubu for a month viewing of thirty interesting art house movies than to sit in a theatre surrounded by dozens of people munching away on pop corn and nachos who intermittently either jump up and run out to talk on their mobiles or worse, take out a bright illuminated screen and start messaging. Broad band speeds have not only greatly improved download to streamed play times to seconds but enabled good world cinema to reach every distant corner of these isles. If our content is high quality or niche targeted and priced very reasonably or even for free (being covered by sponsors), we for the very first time have a chance at a real bite of the cherry and to develop our own film brands on-line which would only get easy with even tiny trickles of revenue.

    3 years ago
  • PS My highly acclaimed film "Little England" Dur 80mins, originally broadcast on C4 twenty years ago is now up on-line as a VOD for seventy five pence, eighty one minute films about LOVE, SEX, MONEY, DRUGS, DEATH, HEROES, ART

    3 years ago
  • Ray. I think you may have suggested just why VOD in terms of single unit film products isn't going to be much of an earner. I don't imagine that very many shooters will pay to view your film, but I'll be very happy if I'm wrong.

    Refering back to my previous contribution here though, where I suggested that if any bright sparks discovered how to earn their money by giving their films away for free and never having to worry about piracy, should keep it under their hat. You replied with the opinion that it's vital that we share the specifics with each other on SP. Herein lies the dichotomy. Are we commercial enterprises or are we a hobbiest collective? Some of us here have given away tons of valuable advice and others have gleened commercial advantage from it. There's a clear trade deficit! The potency outlined with such radical creative business thinking as free distribution ought not require the brains of a rocket scientist to extrapolate a specific methodology. Until some of us have been able to propaly benefit from all their hard work and investment though, the blueprint ought not be handed out too freely. Quite frankly, the business model mooted is simple in principle and we can expect opportunities becoming available for some producers in due course.

    The dichotomy I mentioned is with regard to the fact that whilst the 30,000 odd members on SP are a mutually supportive community we're also trying to succeed in a challanging and competitive market. Not many of us here are glibly giving away their best creative and business plans to 30,000 potential competitors. Having said that, it's what I've just done. For them that have an ear, let them hear.

    3 years ago
  • altruism versus commercialism
    The big question, how far can you lean towards one without compromising the other. Its just really depends on where you are at personally. Agreed, giving away to much, will strengthen ones competitors indeed, but such acts rarely go unnoticed and are often greatly appreciated and the benefits are sometimes less obvious to see and evaluate initially. A few examples: the Linux computer operating system (OS) is assembled under the model of free and open-source software development and distribution, contributors do not make any money from their time spent improving the OS, but those who manage to improve the system who are often head hunted by large corporations and end up being paid huge salaries for their skills as consultants or employed full time, their time investment was not directly financially beneficial but in a round about way opened potential lucrative doors. In the modern socially obsessed world, individuals and small companies can find that trying to get web or brand awareness is daunting if not nigh near impossible to achieve, to get free copy in magazines it is often expected to get free copy you will in turn be asked to pay for opposite page paid for advertisements. Acts of altruism can direct traffic to your websites, garner you and your project/s free publicity, earn you respect amongst ones peers, build ones brand, positive press especially when free builds awareness, you can choose to pay for advertising, which works in a similar way, but is very expensive. Take the recent example of "Tex Montana" (a public domain free release film), whatever you think about the film, it's quality and production values, it was most probably not very expensive to make and was seen/is being seen by a huge audience, far larger than if they had asked for even a small fee to watch it as a VOD. The makers are looking for funds and followers for their next project, the release therefore seems to be quite logical, building awareness of their brand to enable a bigger more expensive project. The release garnered lots of press coverage internationally, not an easy thing to do. Everyone deserves the right to make a living but if your trying to get attention sometimes a little bit of altruism can go a long way in getting you there.

    One last point in regard to sharing, some people are very generous with their time and contributions to this list, whilst others do just sit back and drink in all the offered free advise given by others but never contributing themselves, maybe in never even crosses their minds even, a debt therefore is owed to some, indebted respect is recognised and noted by me, I know your names and who you are, so please don't give up on altruism and remember, what goes around comes around!
    Raygards bRAdY

    3 years ago
  • Bit reluctant to join in all this stuff about 'destribution' etc. I just scribble a bit. Would love to know Ray what you think about a short story I wrote for our local U3A 'creative writing' group. I've done a few shorts and a one-act play and some other stuff but this one I think could have a real kick-in-the-balls ending.

    3 years ago
  • As an actor & now content Creator I have been Experimenting with some of the social media platforms for what it is worth. Friends who have a 1.4 m views on a webseries on YouTube have earnt $150 in total & that is hours of tweeting between the 3 of them plus the making of it.
    However they are using it to get other work - but when you have spent years making a feature I think most filmmakers could take done some time out at the top & start the marketing campaign then! Even if it's just who will like this movie, who is it aimed at - are they people /cast/Kickstarter etc that can be brought in early to help market it. We all start with dreams but some early pre-sales thoughts would not be a bad idea :)
    'We are colony' Actively want behind the scenes footage & early interviews with creators and buy all that as part of the film package.
    At present I have a 19 part webseries Songs Of Brexit by my comedy character THE SINGING PSYCHIC going out on Daily Motion as they have been very focused on promoting it as its comedy & so far my first episode has thru them had about 4K views which given I had no viewers or a channel on there before is good & earnt maybe $2! Having said that my character The Singing Psychic does gigs (both high profile like The Brits & also local eg Prague Fringe Festival & Edinburgh this year. This means for me my films are there to market where I do gigs & do get me press - I am appearing on London Live TV tomorrow for an interview on my Brexif webseries/ it ultimately boils down to marketing & finding your niche audience which takes time and effort.
    I go to Cannes Film festivAl as an actor as I always have films in and I encourage all filmmakers to
    Go even if they can get a film in the short film corner. Film there is so clearly a business but dreams can still happen.
    The more we know about sales agents, distributors & the fact that Cannes is ultimately a monster marketing exercise the better. People will see your film if they know you, you turned up & screened it, you have cast on or a story they want to see, or you paid a fortune to be on a bus stop. They even go to see films by directors eg Tim Burton or they love scifi hence the ComicCon success. If they don't know you the market is saturated - so niche marketing I'd always the way to go - find your fans. So even if you are selling via an online platform you still have to keep banging the drum when you had rather be making more film!
    Don't want to sound negative as I am out there somehow making my own career as an actor and as a creative -(I make comedy sketches as people only cast me in straight dramatic role ;) my dreams are happening with a huge amount of persistence but I do think it is about building that network step by step, pitching your film where you can & getting it seen. Every day keep moving forward & Make a connection.
    Good luck - we are filmmakers we never give up :))

    3 years ago
  • Admirable application of persistence and energy Marysia. Massive self publicity can be effective. Together with the annual trip to Cannes I imagine that the process requires some investment in time and money. However this conversation was about alternative distribution not trying to catch the eye of billionaire moguls, and whether or not VOD and pay per view models for a single film is viably rewarding (only if it's something extraordinary).

    The central issue with any product is, who are the customers who will invest both thier time and money too? Whilst in the arts and entertainment industry self belief is a prerequisite, the ease with which it can morph into conceit can be problematic. That we are inundated with creative products and proposals is true. Trying to compete in a massively competitive market where perhaps 90% of the financially viable outlets are controlled by a bottlenecked cartel of big business and establishment held broadcasters, provides only thin chance for a lucky few. It's evident that talent does not always win over the insipidly banal in that cartels world.

    Marysia points out how poorly rewarded are things like YouTube. However they do provide a distribution platform that can contribute to the reward of projects that don't seek sales based on a fraction of a penny per view, or even a pound per view. The free distribution business model requires that every penny needed to provide the production budget, pay everyone a proper fee and provide a worthwhile profit for the producer, has to be raised up front, fully front loaded is the term. I'm not going to give even a sample blueprint here but there's more than one type. What is essential though is that to get a production fully front loaded it will need to be something more than insipidly banal, even when exploiting big action scenes and beautiful people or other turd polishing devices. It will need to have a quality that extends beyond chewing gum for the mind. It really is a new era for the sort of intelligent entertainment that British creatives are good at. Think melding documentary and drama for example or melding comedy and wit with factual. There's quite a few more genres that fit the model. As a business model the USP is as always, bums on seats, millions of them across unlimited time and territory; except these audiences don't pay a bean.

    3 years ago
  • Interesting stuff Maryisa and thank you for contributing. Agreed and sadly YouTube payments are minuscule as a percentage in comparison to the amount they take from advertisers, using the site to publicise you projects with trailers and teasers is free and very useful. John, Little England was half drama and half documentary, half the content was scripted and performed by actors and the other half was improvised by non actors, I shot and showed the feature length piece (80 mins) twenty years ago, it was received in both the tabloids and broadsheets to universally great reviews, I had hoped that C4 would have subsequently commissioned pieces from me (they bought it and screened it as a pick-up) but alas Nada! They paid us exactly what it cost to make, which sounds like a pretty generous deal I know, but since it was so quintessentially British in content, it failed to secure any other international sales and my then investors lost interest and didn't understandably reinvest. Now as I am sure you are very well aware off, there are approx two hundred and forty potential territories (or so) that you can sell a movie/film rights to. Make the right kind of project and you may sell several of them as I have done in the past with some of my films. Telytubies sold 240 of them, it was a phenomenon. I'm pretty sure Downturn Abbey (I know it's Downton) most probably did the same. Well these deals are expensive to organise, arrange and to contract, revenue collection is also very difficult and expensive so the numbers have to be big to make these sale commercially viable, well yesterday on Vimeo VOD I sold a film in Saudi Arabia, OK $2.5 isn't a life changing amount of money, but it does illustrate a point, markets that I previously most likely didn't have a hope in hell of selling to suddenly have opened up. Using the internet, filmmakers can reach and sell audiences globally, the potential market for indies has expanded. Studios who have relied on hugely expensive tentpole summer releases have once again been burned on several franchise or supposedly "dead cert" bankable star backed films going belly up, with the right content bored audiences "might" (I know this is reaching a bit but I really do believe that some young savy people are beginning to see that there are other options than Sky and Netflix, they might just go on-line and start looking for web released movies, even pay for them (like a dollar or a quid), great news potentially for indies who very often after making their films have no money left to publicise and market them.

    3 years ago
  • There's an interesting point about those big studio mega flops, they all make money in the long term. Mostly thier be able counters assume that a flop will have a ten to twenty year afterlife, which for big corporation with a hundred of those afterlife flops on the go is a profitable tax benefit. The differences of scale between individual producers and big corporations mean that what they do is irrelevant to what we do and need.

    3 years ago
  • Even Waterworld eventually recouped ;-)

    3 years ago
  • Everything John said. Everything. Perhaps I'm too old to be optimistic about this brave new world. One idea that's been floating around Hollywood, is to adjust ticket prices to budget. I really like that idea. A small indie, for example, might ask $7 instead of the normal $15 (here in Los Angeles). Some see it as devaluing cinema. I see it as a way to grow quality cinema and audiences. Theatre owners fight it to the death, so it's not gotten much traction.

    Asking others to work on a feature for low or no pay is simply something I can't do. I guess more power to those that can and do accomplish a feature that way. But given the low rate needed to get people to click on that button, I'm afraid it's a race to the bottom. Budgets have to be under a million, often way under, to have any hopes of breaking even. In the end, you can't compete with free. PirateBay has that market all locked up.

    A dollar or a pound... one needs an incredible track record to pull that one off. Wes Anderson could probably make a go of it if he needed to. But the rest of us? But hey, I'm often wrong.

    3 years ago
  • in regard to studio tent-pole mega flops and "Waterworld" eventually through clever accounting and decades of ancillary sales, endless TV late night reruns etc, flops and debt are never considered successes, eventually heads will roll, shareholders will get their pound of flesh or profits, or simply invest in other studios that are being more successful in their hit rates, there are always consequences to studio tent-pole failures, reputations are tarnished or ruined beyond repair, losses still show up in the yearly shareholders meetings, people are fired. Companies are always looking for new investment, studios are no different, poor performance of huge costly failures causes lots of damage that no long term accounting and sales twenty years down the line is going to cover up.
    Cinema's take ninety per cent of the takings in films opening weekend, about 80 per cent there after. Also the cinema owners take all of the profits from concessions. Once the studios finally understood this they bought up as many cinema chains as possible. That's why they can open films at three and a half thousand screens in the USA, sometimes like last week, three films had almost the same amount of screens, all around three thousand. The powers that be aren't going to give an inch on their profits and revenues for low budget fare, very unlikely to widen as a model to emulate in the independent cinema's that are already working that way, the idea of lower ticket prices for low budget films simply will never fly when there''s studios controlling the vast majority of cinema screens, anyone booking is always faced with packaged quotas that though are illegal we all no still exist, take these four films or you won't get to screen Jurassic Park ten etc.
    So let's steer away from cinema distribution please and talk about "Hollywood", let's stay focused on thoughts and ideas re ways forward through internet sales and ingenious marketing campaigns. Maybe if we can work out a few new interesting promotional ideas, use the net to cheaply launch our indie films (inexpensive films, often made on a shoe string budget by collaborators), attempt to reach the tipping point were publicity becomes self producing through likes, re-tweets etc We all can see the negatives here, once doesn't have to be naive to simply brainstorm around the problem (almost insurmountable I know) and look for ways of creating impact.

    3 years ago
  • Imagine what the impact would be if cinema owners and TV broadcasters were given well publicised, awesome and we'll produced films for free! Particularly with limited time and territorial exclusivity, also for free. After which the film is joyfully handed over to the feebooters, pirates and anyone else who wants to have it for any purpose at all.

    About those big studio flops though; ordinary flops of otherwise reasonably competent films are rarely actual flops. They begin recouping and going into profit almost as soon as the dust has settled on the media chatter about it being a flop. The bean counters have already factored reality into the budgets long before. The competent producers and directors of those ordinary flops probably won't suffer much other than missing an opportunity to be super hero's, but then there's only room for a few super hero's. Even with the mega flops it's interesting to see how the principles and stars do actually survive. A really well handled mega flop can even be turned into a viable marketing opportunity. As said, one ought not take ones own case to be a generality. The differences of scale are on entirely different planets.

    3 years ago
  • Time to get this back on track:
    Attention all you indie filmmakers re distribution by on-line VOD. Realising that VOD has greatly expanded in the last few years I wondered if any other shooters out there have recent experience with selling directly through i.e. Netflix, HuluPlus (USA only), Vudu, blinkbox, Lovefilm, indiemoviesonline, Apple's itunes, SlingTV (USA only), Google Play & YouTube (any other not mentioned), who would care to share either on-line or confidentially?

    Let's say we're agreed that YouTube is out, with the exception of using it for promotional purposes i.e. trailers, stingers, tests, free taster excerpts etc,.

    Do any of you please have any other experience, positive or negative, that you are willing to share publicly or privately. If it helps, if anything is sent to me privately to me by email just say whether you wish to keep it private (the information will never be repeated anywhere) or alternatively whether you would please allow me to post the information up on here under the title "anonymous contribution", I completely understand that sometimes people do not want statements being publicly posted with possible litigious consequences with their names attached?

    3 years ago
  • You can't take theatrical out of the big picture. A theatrical release will always mean more money once in ancillary markets. (BTW, studios don't own theater chains outright, and the 90% of box-office is extremely rare, and only for opening week).

    But to answer your question about VOD: no stars, no big awards and no theatrical release means that Netflix will pay you as low as $1,200 for 1-2 years of streaming rights. You'd be much better off going directly to iTunes and promoting the shit out of your film. (Or going to anyone that pays a per streaming fee). I'd stay off Google Play as Google is very lax about a pirate taking your film, then re-uploading it at a lower price and taking all of those sales. Authors, even well known ones, are having a hell of a time trying to get google to combat that practice with their books. Piracy has been very, very good for Google. Louis C.K. had some great success offering his self produced stand-up specials from his own site for $5. Then he put all of that money into his new series, and lost it all. Nobody wanted to pay per episode for a TV show. So even names can have a hard time of it.

    The only direct to VOD success for a feature I have ever heard of is the Polish Brothers iTunes release. But they had a star from a hit TV show who had 215k twitter followers. And since it was deemed "experimental," they didn't have deal with that pesky SAG contract for Stana Katic (from the TV show "Castle"). "For Lovers Only" made $200k its first week on iTunes. And since they claim it was shot for zero, that's dollar one profit. But that was 5 years ago. Haven't heard of a big success since.

    I don't want to be a "Debbie Downer" here. Truly I don't. I've had my work pirated, and have been trying to find a solution for the last 10 years. The only thing I've learned is that you can't compete with "free." So I hope, I really hope, you find a solution and share it with us.

    3 years ago