Ask and Discuss |Shooting People

10 years, 11 months ago - Peter Ward

Given a choice between something like SOPA and piracy, I'll take piracy. And I think the reality is any new anti-piracy legislation will be along the lines of SOPA--effectively giving ISPs obscene power (you almost need a VPN to watch Netflix as it is). Unfortunately there are larger issues at stake than just the fate of independent film.

Response from 10 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW

11 years ago - Johnny Sanchez

I should add that, I do not agree with pirating a film before it is released... if you notice.. by comments were all about how my film was poised for success in the box office but it was dumped on advertising by the distributor.

The Expendables 3... that is a tragedy that happened to it. It truly really is. The distributors are spending money on that one.. and I do not wish anyone any ill. I wish they had been given a chance before it was pirated... and it is so wrong the film wasn't given a chance in the box office.

So my case is a different scenario than The Expendables 3. Very different. That's why I said what I said.. and whoever pirated my film did it AFTER our initial release in the box office. So very different scenario and I would not wish piracy on anyone... even if the distributor is cooking the books... they way we feel ours did it with us.

10 years, 12 months ago - D. James Newton

If you think people Google for pirated content then either you are deluded or 5yrs behind the tech curve.
Peer to peer doesn't need Google to operate.

Response from 10 years, 12 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW

11 years ago - D. James Newton

Why aren't filmmakers getting behind sites like Distrify? Surely long term this route (if not this site) is the answer to independent film distribution?

Response from 11 years ago - Kays Alatrakchi SHOW

11 years ago - Karel Bata

You actually celebrate that profit margins are now so low that emerging film-makers have to live in penury? (Or have a rich dad.) It was always possible to make a movie for f all, and some did. It's hardly progress that now you have no choice.

A shake-up? It's a demolition!

Airlines? For a cheap indie? That's laughable.

11 years ago - Kays Alatrakchi

@Dan Selakovich and @D. James Newton:

"An overwhelming majority of 'pirates' have no intention of ever buying"

Here's something that's going to shake your noggins...a sizable chunk of 'pirates' have no intention of ever watching what they downloaded. There is definitely a hoarding mentality to many who download pirated content. Another aspect of it is as a status symbol, or to gain more prestige and credibility within the culture.

You guys seem to want to simplify things into a black and white definition, but in reality the culture of piracy is a lot more nuanced than that.

Dan, we've had this conversation about your book before (and I would sure love to have it in person over a couple of drinks), but is it maybe possible that sales dropped because the majority of your purchasing public bought your book and the demand simply trickled down due to a natural market curve? Perhaps the same with your friend's album? After all, movies suffer from the same effect...lots of box office sales on opening week-end and then a rapid decline. Do you blame that on piracy too?

11 years ago - Kays Alatrakchi

@Dan Selakovich

Dan, with all due respect (and believe me, anyone who has worked for Cannon gets lots of respect from me), I believe you're imagining a fantasy world. I completely understand your need to rationalize the drastic change that we have all witnessed in our industry in the past 10 years in easy to grasp concepts; as well as the need to clearly define a "bad guy" that can be squarely blamed for all of the ills, but to think in such black and white terms is equivalent to digging one's head in the sand.

I don't like the way things are, I don't like the fact that most of my industry friends are effectively unemployed. I totally get the psychological rationalization of piracy as the cause, but I strongly disagree, or feel that it's even anywhere near the top cause for what we are all experiencing.

Unfortunately the lack of an educated and open discussion in an effort to narrow down the real culprits, and perhaps even conceive of realistic solutions, gets drowned out by the typical response that is exemplified by (sorry to say) your posts.

10 years, 11 months ago - Kays Alatrakchi

@Dan Selakovich
Let me ask you something Dan...do you cry yourself to sleep at night, or do you just shake you fist in the air? Because not only are you not proposing any solutions whatsoever, but it seems to me like you're not even interested in having a balanced conversation about it. You have already arrived at your conclusion, and I guess it's a bit futile for us to keep going back and forth about it since you're obviously not going to change my mind, and I'm obviously not going to change yours. If anything, let's be glad we're not in a position to exchange mortar fire! ;-)

11 years ago - Kays Alatrakchi

@Dan Selakovich

And your solution is? I mean I agree that Netflix pays very little, but it's what the market demands. I assure you that the big studios make considerably more than $1200/year from Netflix. The reality is that small indie films are poorly valued due to many factors, and piracy is not nearly at the top of that list (but quality of content and most importantly amount of content are).

The other thing to keep in mind is that as people age, they typically have a stronger moral incentive to pay for content. This has not changed at all through the years. When I was in High School (far too long ago than I care to specify), everyone used to "pirate" records by distributing cassette tapes. Once VCR's became popular enough, the same thing happened with movies.Not a whole lot has changed generationally, what did change is that as our generation ages, we have a deeper respect for the value of content.

My point is that this reality, we either need to accept it and try to adapt and offer a legitimate option that is also priced according to what the market can bear, or we always have the option to get out of this business and work in a field that is not impacted by piracy.

10 years, 11 months ago - Kays Alatrakchi

"But I get it - old dogs and new tricks etc."

I think you hit the nail on the head D. James. What you are seeing here on this tiny slice of opinions is an unwillingness to really truly get to the heart of the issue...perhaps because doing so might lead us to arrive at conclusions that we don't like? Also...last time I checked, Kurt Sutter is doing quite nicely for himself, piracy or not.

11 years ago - D. James Newton

And on the question of piracy - lets not get carried away in thinking that everyone who pirates would be a purchasing consumer.
An overwhelming majority of 'pirates' have no intention of ever buying - if it wasn't available freely, they wouldn't go and get it by legitimate means. They take it because it is there.
(This fuels the "I want people to see my work theory")

The world of distribution needs a shake-up and if piracy has any benefits it may be that it breaks the monopoly that distributers have over cinemas. Of course this is idealistic and a long-term view but we have to hope there's some benefit whilst we are in the eye of the storm.

Piracy has already meant that quality films are being produced for a lot less money (Blue Ruin for example) and this should be celebrated.

For filmmakers, there's never been more outlets for their work than there is today, VOD, Airlines, Online, iTunes, etc therefore you need to choose carefully where your work is best suited.

Personally, I love the big screen - but hate the experience of going to the cinema.

Response from 11 years ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW

11 years ago - D. James Newton

"profit margins are now so low that emerging film-makers have to live in penury? (Or have a rich dad.)"

- as you say, it was always thus. It has never been anything other than this. Film was a lot more expensive too. One of the problems the industry has today is that anyone can now be a filmmaker and make a feature with no money and no skills.

And no I don't celebrate it...my comment refers to the production budget not the profit margins. My Apologies, I thought that was quite clear.

Response from 11 years ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW

10 years, 12 months ago - Dan Selakovich

@Kays Alatrakchi All I can say, Kays, until you've lived it, or at least known somebody that's lived it, it's all academic for you. Yes, we've had this discussion before, yet you ignore easily any fact I give out. Books don't reach a mass overnight and drop to nothing. But you like to ignore those kinds of tidbits. You like to ignore the fact that any film that shows up on a pirate site will not get distribution. You like to ignore the facts like a pre-release pirated film loses around 20 percent of its box-office. Or if stolen, you blame the creator of the work for not preparing for it. As if it's somehow their fault.

All the ills? I think you're reading a lot more into what I'm saying. In L.A., the lack of tax credits hurt local production. The fact that Hollywood only makes a handful of films, and no longer finances mid-range features hurts. That's partly to blame on piracy and partly on other issues.

I'm blaming piracy for hurting the creators ability to make a living. It's basic economics. If you made a widget, and then someone stole that widget and gave free copies away, do you really not think it will hurt your sales? Really?

Do you really think that distributors like Spotify would exist WITHOUT piracy? But recording artist feel they have to use these services so they'll at least make SOMETHING.

Check out Copyright Alliance to see all of the issues piracy touches:

http://www.copyrightalliance.org

Piracy in the U.S. has been studied to death. Here's a latest conclusion:

"While Smith’s study is the first peer-reviewed article to look specifically at pre-release piracy and its effects, it is not the first to look at the effects of other forms of piracy on films. In fact, in his article, Smith notes that eight peer-reviewed studies so far have looked at the effect of piracy on film sales, and, more significantly, seven of the eight studies have found “that piracy results in significant harm to motion picture sales.” A broader literature review – focusing not solely on films but on other types of works such as recorded music – found that “The vast majority of papers which have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals — papers spanning a variety of methods, time periods, and contexts — find that piracy causes a statistically significant decrease in sales.”

Currently, the Chinese Government (of all places) is trying to put the unenforced copyright and patent genie back in the bottle. They've found that theft of creative work stifles innovation, and it's hurting their economy. A SHOCK!

In the end, piracy takes away an artist's choice. Piracy affects copyright, net neutrality, and a whole host of issues.

I would argue, Kays, that it is you that have your head in the sand. So go ahead. Make something. Make money on that something. Live off that something. I dare you. (No cheating now. Being a hired hand doesn't count).

Response from 10 years, 12 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW

10 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

@Kays Alatrakchi No, I do not cry myself to sleep at night (no need to be a douche).

I was researching for a doc on piracy, so I just happen to know a lot about it from both sides. I've talked to those that think piracy can be a good thing. But, now, even they have seen it grow out of control to the point that their views are changing. For example, a couple of years ago, and author with at least 3 titles could up his readership by giving away one of those titles (I argue that this isn't piracy, as the artist had a choice in the matter). This would result in more sales for his/her other titles. But the problem now is that an up in readership makes his other titles more enticing to pirates. Why? Because more individual visits to those sites means more ad revenue. Besides, this doesn't work with films, as they are a "one off."

I spent two years tracking films on pirate sites. Pre-release films on those sites only 2 years ago were between 20 and 30%. Tracking those same sites November and December of last year: between 90 and 100%. It's difficult to make money at the box office if your film has been pirated before it has a chance in the theater. One example "Battleship" was on pirates sites a full 2 months before its release.

In the area of residuals--well, they are pretty much done. I'm not talking big stars. I don't really care if Bruce Willis adds to his millions. But there are supporting cast, writers and directors, who really depend on residual payments to survive. These payments don't come on theatrical, they come in after market distribution. They are all but non-existent now. Ask any actor whose been at if for awhile. They all have a story. To add to that, character actors that made $10,000 for a weeks work 15 years ago, now make scale. Piracy (among other factors) has forced budgets two ways: through the roof and next to nothing. How many midlevel films did Paramount fund last year? In 2007 Warner indie distribution prexy Steve Friedlander, “the only thing you find in the middle of the road is a dead animal.” Currently, the studios have folded all of their indie arms into the parent company. Studios may distribute indie films, but they no longer fund them. That hurts all of us. When studios only do big budget tentpole films, it shrinks the ability for an indie to get into a theater, because, even with lower ticket sales percentage, theaters still want as many bodies at the concession stand as possible. And if a midlevel film does make it to the theater, the P and A budgets are abysmal because piracy will take a huge chunk of the pie, and they are all running scared.

It matters not one whit if people download and don't watch. It's too late by then. Pirates have already gotten their ad revenue.

In the end, it's about perception. If an investor THINKS he won't make money because of piracy, he won't invest. If studios THINK piracy affects their bottom line, they won't fund or distribute smaller films, or if they do, give them short shrift. If a song writer THINKS his stuff will be pirated, he'll stick it on Spotify and try to be happy with $100 bucks for 500,000 downloads. Fairly recently, I asked a Paramount exec. "what's with all the 3D?" Of course his answer was about piracy. That's HIS perception, and simply true, I might add.

My line of work was fixing films in trouble. In the 90s that budget range was 5 to 20 million. Those are just gone, lower budget films don't try to put out a best product (at least the distributors don't find it worth it), instead opt for a DVD release or a quick sale to a cable network. Lately it's been films that have triggered their completion bond by going over budget. Not a great way to work, but it's work, I guess. It's not all because of piracy, but piracy and its perception, play an ever increasing roll.

Response from 10 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW

10 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

And I wish the next generation all the best with making these new finance options work for them! But don't forget a lot of old dogs have seen a lot of new tricks come and go with varying degrees of longevity. Certain types of film can be filmed with a risk-it-all house and pension investment, others can't. If your budget costs more than a house, then what? Back to finding backers, and giving them a return, so having to convince them to risk their own money in your dream.

Have you ever been out to Cannes or AFM? There are a LOT of films out there. A shedload. A fuckload. How many make distribution, let alone their money back, let alone a profit? It's a slim percentage. It's a great reality check when you see just how many films (good, bad, mediocre, every genre, every budget level) are out there each year fighting for sales. Risk the house, but maybe on less of a long-shot!

10 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

PS - camera kit may be much cheaper now than ever before in history, that's great! On my last feature though, the actual camera kit hire came to 1% of the cash budget. If it has been 0.7%, it wouldn't have made as great a difference as say not having casting agents agreeing 'favoured nations' between two cast, or having to pick up a night shoot. Kit cost is only a small part of making a movie!

10 years, 11 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

@Kays Alatrakchi re Karl Sutter - kinda irrelevant to be honest, TV and movie finance is based on entirely different models. Piracy affects box set sales and international resale, but the actual live transmissions can get an upside from the viewing base, meaning advertiser dollars. Movies aren't episodic, massive difference.

10 years, 12 months ago - D. James Newton

Is that really how you want to finance your movie?
- yes...

I don't care where the money comes from, I'll do all that it takes to get the finance in place to complete the project.
I think what Jeremy did needs to be celebrated as this is the future of independent filmmaking.
(Like it or not you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, so adapt or die. Piracy has done the damage and what's done cannot be undone. Move on and find a different way of doing things.)

If you think that feature film finance isn't cobbled together from bits and pieces here and there then you are very much mistaken.

Ken Marshall* was telling us the other day all the hoops and loops he was jumping through to get finance. Money comes from whatever source you can get it from. I see no problem with raiding your pension pot to fund a film - if that's what you believe in. Go for it.
Their gamble has paid off - Blue Ruin has more than recouped. I understand it won't work for everyone but it sure as hell beats sitting around waiting for a time-machine to wind back the clock.

I can only repeat. The damage is done. Find another way and get on with it.

* http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1969339/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2

10 years, 11 months ago - D. James Newton

@Dan Selakovich
Really?
"The chances of an independent film being pirated before release is near 100%?"
You've embarrassed yourself and lost your argument in one sentence.
That completes me on this thread.
Good luck everyone!

10 years, 12 months ago - Karel Bata

Just stumbled across an article on Blue Ruin - which was praised above as a model of indie financing:
"Saulnier relied on financing from his wife's retirement fund, his own Amex card, and a last-minute Kickstarter campaign."

http://bit.ly/BlueRuinFinance

Is that really how you want to finance your movie? What about those who don't have a wife willing to cash in her retirement fund..?

10 years, 12 months ago - Dan Selakovich

@D. James Newton Yeah, sorry, can't do it. The damage can be undone. If one company, Google, would stop making a profit off illegal activity and help us out, things would turn around really fast.

Here's a little something from the creator of Sons of Anarchy, Kurt Sutter:

"...But make no mistake: I work hard to create my content. So do the hundreds of people I employ who work with me every day.

So does every other writer, producer, director, actor, musician, tech developer, and artist out there. We all commit and burn to do what we love.

Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience. And I’m sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn’t contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit. Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work. People access Kim through Google. And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it’s presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It’s so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who’s the friend of the young everyman. Don’t kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a shit about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You’re just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word “parasite.” And if you think I’m exaggerating, ask yourself why Google spends tens of millions of dollars each year to hire lawyers and lobbyists (like Marv) whose sole purpose is to erode creative copyright laws.

Do they do this because they hate artists? No. They do it because they love money.

Every writer, producer, actor, musician, director, tech wizard, and fine artist working today needs to be aware of what this all means for our future—we will lose the ability to protect and profit from our own work. Every kid out there who aspires to be an actor or musician or artist: This is your future that’s at stake. More importantly, everyone who enjoys quality entertainment: This impacts you most of all. Content excellence cannot sustain itself if it loses its capacity to reward the talent that creates it. Consider this clunky analogy: If your local car dealership started selling your favorite luxury car for $1,000, then $100, then started giving it away, what do you think would happen to the quality of that vehicle? Before long, the manufacturer would be forced to let go of the skilled laborer, the artisan, and the craftsman, and eventually cut back on everything in the production process. And before long, that fabulous, high-end car you so enjoyed will be a sheet of warped plywood on top of two rusty cans.

Yep, it’s cheap, and it’s shit."

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/03/sons_of_anarchy_creator_kurt_sutter_google_s_copyright_stance_is_bad_for.html

Or this report on Google and Youtube by the Digital Citizens Alliance:

http://www.digitalcitizensalliance.org/cac/alliance/getobject.aspx?file=YouTube

We are in this mess because huge corporations (well, Google mostly) are bad actors that lobby to erode copyright law simply to make more money than god.

Response from 10 years, 12 months ago - Dan Selakovich SHOW

11 years ago - Dan Selakovich

Oh, Karel, you've opened a hornet's nest now!

I've posted a lot about piracy after my book was stolen. The last time was here:

https://shootingpeople.org/discuss/view/6d7e852172c8de42e17624d0

There are quite a few SP members who think it's absolutely OK to steal films. Because, hey, it's not really stealing because it's digital. What they don't get is that the result is the same from the victim's POV if you'd actually stolen a physical copy: a quick trip to the poorhouse.

If you had a film in a theatre, and a million people slipped by without buying a ticket, isn't that stealing? And what's the difference to downloading?

You're going to get a lot of arguments here, Karel. Here are a few of my favorites:

1. "Piracy will actually help sales." Yes, there are some extreme examples out there, but it's bullshit for 99% of the rest.

2. "It isn't stealing because it's ones and zeroes." Let's see, if with a mouse click, I could have a new Audi in my driveway do you REALLY believe that wouldn't hurt Audi sales?

3. "The studios are always screwing the artist, so piracy is my way to stick it to the man." This one is GOLD! The result is the artist is getting fucked from both ends now.

4. "There are ways of making money off piracy like screenings with the filmmakers. You know, like Kevin Smith did." May work for a short time if you are a famous filmmaker. As an unknown, do you really think people would pay $20 to see you?

5. "If I download something for free and I like it, I'll go buy a copy." Yeah, bullshit. If just one percent of people bought my book that stole it, I'd be pretty set financially.

6. "Studios actually put films up on pirate sites to push interest, so they WANT us to download it." If you believe that one, I have a bridge in San Francisco I'm selling dirt cheap!

7. "People should just fund their project through Kickstarter, then profit wouldn't be an issue." OK, I'm going to need $10,000 from every shooting people member. Thanks everybody!

8. "You should write for the love of it." I was actually told this. Love don't pay the rent, darlin'.

9. "Movies are just to expensive to see in a theatre." Well, shit, wait for the DVD, you entitled fuck.

10. "Information should be free." Yeah, only movies aren't information. They are a product like that meal out you had last week.

I could go on and on and on. I've heard them all over the years. I'm curious to see if attitudes are changing, at least here on a FILMMAKERS forum.

11 years ago - Dan Selakovich

Yes, if given a legal way to watch at a low low price, people will not pirate, for the most part. But here's the rub: Netflix only pays about $1200 for a year of streaming on indie films. So unless you get that film into a theater, on DVD and VOD and create a big "want" for your film, the only thing you get out of Netflix is chump change.

Think of it this way: Some kid wants to watch a movie on Amazon that costs $3. Pretty cheap right? But then he has to ask mom, hopes she says yes, then gets her credit card... I'm pretty sure he'll just skip all that and head for a torrent site.

I'm reminded of a record producer who found a bunch of stolen songs on his kid's iPod. This is what he had to say: "He's heard me bitch every night about piracy at the dinner table, and how it's destroying our life. If I can't keep my own kid from downloading, there's no hope."

11 years ago - Dan Selakovich

@Kays Alatrakchi As I said, Kays, I don't have a solution. Never found one. Also mentioned that Netflix pays low for indie films.

I'm an advocate of tiered theater pricing. Small films that cost little (comparatively) to make would have a lower ticket price than big budget tentpole films. But theaters fight that to the last breath.

10 years, 12 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Thank you Karel. I winced at the idea of cashing in the wife's retirement. The chances of that film getting stolen before a release are near 100%. What then?

10 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

@D. James Newton Yeah, I'm afraid that's true. BTW, I'm talking theatrical. Not DVD, VOD etc. The really nasty stories are from filmmakers who've submitted to festivals, then see their work on a pirate site. But some are just innocent crew members who post a film as their reel, or share a DVD supplied to the crew members, not knowing how easily it is for that film to spider out to various pirate sites.

It's actually a pretty easy thing to figure. Go to a major pirate site and see what's available. Then check that against release dates. You'll be gobsmacked.

10 years, 11 months ago - Dan Selakovich

@Paddy Robinson-Griffin I agree, Paddy. One shouldn't look at Sutter personally, but the big picture of what he is saying about Google.

As far as vast opinion goes, Kays, is that the majority of people you talk to don't see piracy as a problem, because it benefits them. But talk to the content creators, and you'll hear a different tune.

But I'm absolutely open to a new paradigm. Perhaps someone could fill me in on what that is.

11 years ago - Dan Selakovich

Absolutely sucks, Johnny. (BTW, liked Find Me Guilty). And listen, if a film is unavailable anywhere, then I don't have a problem with it being pirated. I've been wanting to re-watch Bill Forsyth's film "Comfort and Joy" for YEARS now. Can't find it anywhere, but I still won't go to a pirate site. I just can't. Just seeing pirate sites on Google makes me squirm and puts a knot in my stomach, as I spent hours everyday sending out DMCA notices for my own work. But I'm sure Mr. Forsyth would say the same as you.

11 years ago - Dan Selakovich

And what is your "work-around"? I truly want to know. I never found one.

Yes, filmmakers get screwed. But man, torrents make anything else look like child's play. In another thread I mentioned 2 distributors in a bidding war over a friend's film. Everything was looking amazing for a very profitable buy-out. Even the low paid crew members were going to see cash! Then it ended up on a pirate site. Both distributors dropped out, and she'd screwed.

11 years ago - Simon Moorhead

As a relatively new member to SP, I apologise if this has been discussed before. At the 2012 Power to the Pixel - Wendy Bernfeld from The Rights Stuff made a very interesting observation on Piracy.

"Last year (2011) was the first year as an example, and there are many, that Netflix outperformed bit torrent in terms of users wanting to watch stuff, and it proves the point that if you offer a service legally that is curated, that it has a recommendation engine that is affordable priced and you make stuff available, people will actually, in fact, pay for it. It doesn’t just have to be our old conception that pirates are stealing and don’t want to pay any money. Actually a lot of Us who pirate, live in countries where legal services are not around and we are fans of the filmmakers, arthouse or festival productions and cannot get them on normal screens."

10 years, 12 months ago - Karel Bata

So 24% of all (non-porn) internet traffic is piracy http://bit.ly/PiracyStats Wow.

No one here is suggesting that the genie be put back in the bottle. But surely we can acknowledge that piracy is damaging us and we need to talk about it?

Your bicycle keeps getting stolen. So do a lot of others. Do you just accept that? Maybe you go steal one yourself. But that's no solution. What if everyone does that? Who'll ever buy one in the first place?

Saying that you're willing to sell your house to make a movie isn't really a business model. And how many houses have you got? Or are you some genius on the verge of being discovered by Hollywood? Oh, you are..? Is that it then? Is that the dream many indies are pursuing?

It explains why sales agents are now interested in 4K (sod the story - what's the format?) but the punters will catch up.

Currently the best way to protect a theatrical release is to make it in 3D!

10 years, 12 months ago - D. James Newton

Well, I guess my point is, with regards to the original statement is that you should use this opportunity to create a new way of doing things, rather than bleat on about the past and how things used to work.
Digital has changed numerous professions - in the same way driverless cars will make taxi drivers redundant in years to come.
There is a new model of financing a film, it exists, it's not perfect but if you are determined to move forward and let go of the past then you can make it work for you. It's possible because it's happening all around you.
But I get it - old dogs and new tricks etc.

My view is let necessity be the mother of invention. What do you have to do to make it work for you...because I can tell you something for sure...the next generation of filmmakers are DOING IT RIGHT NOW.

11 years ago - Johnny Sanchez

As someone who has actually had his films (that I spent 5 years producing) pirated and put online for free... what I am about to say will sound controversial. But, nonetheless, it is only how I personally feel.

I produced 2 feature films - one directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Vin Diesel and Peter Dinklage entitled 'Find Me Guilty'. Another project starring Kim Basinger and Forest Whitaker, directed by Mark Rydell entitled 'Even Money'. Am I name dropping, perhaps... but without giving you the scenario of the potential behind these films... you won't get the picture - no pun intended.

As you can see, based on casts and directors, we were poised for success - or so we thought. Barring creative differences and any critical flaws on the films... the distributor (who I will leave nameless) dumped our films before the initial release. What do I mean by dump? I mean... yes, they got released... but they claim to have spent upward of $10 million dollars -- even sometimes claiming $20 million dollars - advertising the films. Ladies and gentlemen, trust me when I tell you, that is a lie. I would be surprised if the distributor spent close to what they claim they spent... on each film.

I went out and scoured NYC and my producer partner did the same all over Los Angeles... and we only found 8 posters for each film -- both cities combined!! That was the advertising the distributors did and spent $10 million on. As you can imagine.. the films did beyond poorly in their initial theatrical release. Notice I say initial... because, this is where it gets interesting.

DVD sales on Find Me Guilty surpassed any and all expectations.. and we think the distributor already had a feeling about this and that's why they didn't invest in advertising the film in the initial theatrical release... what I call dumping it.... and not investing in it further so that it flops in the initial box office.. and then they can claim they spent all this money advertising it... they control the books.. right? But on DVD, it does beyond amazingly well!! And guess what... they have all these other expenses to account for... expenses they never really paid for... during the initial release. So they can keep all the money!

Except I am the crazy one.. why? Because I can't prove this! In order for me to prove it.. and I am not the only producer who feels this way... other producers who are "friends" with the distributor have said the same thing... to prove it we need to hire lawyers and accountants to open all the accounting books... costing us upward of $150,000 just to get the case going. If we win... all the money we stand to gain would go to legal fees!! And the distributor knows this!! So there you have it.

So what does this have to do with piracy? I made nothing on those films... I produced them both for 5 years of my life... you know how much I got paid? I am embarrassed to even say it... I made NO money from the back end. NOTHING!! Although we (the producers) know that there is profit because of the DVD sales...either way.. the backend is something I will never see. As for my upfront fee (which is aside from backend) for 5 years of work I made less than what an employee at McDonald's makes. I am not lying either. Yes, I am not exaggerating at all. Of course, what I learned about producing and getting an actual film off the ground is invaluable, I can produce the hell out of a film now... I am now using that experience to make my own films... still, it does not mean I was not robbed for those 2 films.

The worst part, I am so proud of those 2 films (Even Money and Find Me Guilty) but I can't find them anywhere anymore. They can't be rented anymore. The distributor made their money and stopped there. They're not even on NetFlix. The ONLY way to watch it is to buy the DVD on Amazon - over $30 - that is the way it is today... who knows how it will be in the future. But today.. the only way is to buy the DVD'S.. no streaming.. no renting. Great!

Point is.. unless they buy it, people won't see my work -- and I wish they could rent or stream it on Netflix - Hulu.. crackle.. iTunes.. whatever. You know where they can see it? Where it is pirated. I have seen them there and I was about to call the distributor and tell them to take it down... I don't know how it got there... but you know what.. after thinking about it.. I don't mind they are there. I rather people see my work.. the films I put so much of my love and time into.. mind you.. I made no real money... so I did it for the love... I rather people see my work than not. So if it means on a pirated website... I accept it. Heck, I make no money either way. As a producer on each film, I make no money. The people you think would make the money.. right?

So guess what... I want people to see my work.. do I wish I made money? Hell, yeah... but the distributors are no longer making the film available and they made money during the DVD - not the box office... and then shut it down. So I want people to see my work... that's the point of why I do what I do. I wish someone hadn't pirated.. but I also wish the distributor hadn't robbed us... but if someone sees my film online.. then I at least find my work is worth something... and that's my opinion.

- Johnny S.

11 years ago - Peter Ward

My point(s) regarding piracy remains:

a) What can be done to stop it? Slap suspects with 30-year felony sentences a la Aaron Schwarz?

b) Indy films never got made - even in the pre-internet Golden Age - without significant portions of the crew working for free or close to it. So there's a lot more way's filmmakers get "robbed" than just torrent downloads.

The only solution I see, accept piracy as unavoidable and work around it. If that can't be done, then I guess for-profit filmmaking is doomed.

ASK & DISCUSS

How piracy hurts independent film...

ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

How piracy hurts independent film...

ASK & DISCUSS