It's not Piracy they're against, it's distribution for Independents they fear!

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

Mark - I won't get drawn into a ridiculously simple argument about something as complex and worldwide as drug legalization here, but I agree with the kernel of what you are saying in that it is important to keep an eye on what is "illegal". For my previous post, come at it from the angle of self-evident crimes for now. Whether that be real atrocities, or that if someone makes a picture, then someone takes it and makes a million copies available for free, that isn't right either.

I would say, at the risk of being drawn into a drug related discussion, that legalization will have immense moral and fiscal repercussions as well, across the globe. It's a big issue, too, and a simple solution is not possible. But I am all for comprehensive approaches to the drug problems of the world. As I am to comprehensive approaches to piracy!

I bet this discussion comes up again as Red goes through their lawsuits with Arri over the Michael Brevin BS. There will certainly be in depth discussions over what was taken, what the gains were, and what the repercussions should be. It will be a hard and in depth legal climb. As it should be.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

THe trouble with copyright infringement is that it's similar in value and proliferation as parking violations.

Without parking cops nobody would pay the meter. The internet has no policing so NO BUSINESS MODEL IS POSSIBLE. When only one side of a contract is enforceable you'll inevitably have systemic violations.

The notion that the studios are afraid of indie distribution is absurd. People like blockbusters. The studios have never been very interested in small budget films nor have they made any substantial money from them. Unless you're George Lucas or James Cameron you aren't going to self-finance a $300m film which is the studio bread and butter. Hell unless you're crazy rich you won't even finance a $10m "small" indie film.

The only model which has shown any viability is the Netflix/Zune Pass/Spotify model. Instant streaming. However for streaming artists make essentially nothing. And films have no opportunity to use it as promotion for live shows. If you're going to make back a $600m budget (with marketing) and 60 million people go to see it you need to extract $10 from each viewer. Compare that to Netflix where it's a couple dollars per viewer and you see the problem. You would need more people to view it than there are netflix subscribers.

Not defending SOPA but I sympathize with being completely unable to enforce the laws on the books. What we need is broader detection and prosecution of infringers with far lower fines. $30 fines for downloading and distribution of prosecution would make the threat real, and tangible.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

On a forum made up of mostly filmmakers and content creators, I'm a bit surprised to see some people almost defending downloading movies and other content illegally. Downloading a movie that you didn't pay for via a rental fee or purchase is in my mind not that far off from walking into Walmart and putting the DVD in your pocket and walking out. In either case you end up with something you didn't pay for. One happens to be a physical disc, the other a bunch of ones and zeros on the computer. Taking Hollywood out of the equation for a moment. Let's say you make a movie. You put up $100K of your own money, and investors put up $900K. So a $1 million dollar movie. In order to make the money back, you need to sell a certain amount of DVDs and perhaps there's a streaming component to the ROI as well. This is an independent film, but you still have investors who expect to at the very least make back their investment. You make a really cool film that actually gets a limited theatrical release. Things are looking good. But then suddenly the movie becomes available on the web illegally and people are choosing to watch it that way instead of buying DVDs and whatever streaming revenues you had counted on. Suddenly your ROI is not looking so good. Your investors are angry, and maybe it affects you ever getting to make a film of that budget level again. In my opinion, as filmmakers we should never be lukewarm about illegal downloading of content. That's not to say one can't give their stuff away for free. That's certainly a different thing altogether and if an artist chooses to do that, no problem there. But to assume it's the internet, anything goes, that's crazy. I know most of you aren't advocating this, I'm just surprised anyone would be even slightly defending it.

Now about these proposed ways to deal with it through government meddling and control. I'm not sure there is a good plan that has been put on the table yet. I do think that the right plan would entail a balance of power, so that infringements could be brought through the proper legal channels, and the least amount of freedom is affected. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to - balance. Do nothing and let the web be some kind of wild, wild west where anything goes and copyright is a thing of the past - not good in my opinion. Have it over-regulated by the government and perhaps opening the door for them to abuse it, not good either. In some ways, the web is like an alternate universe. We may need to bring some new ideas to the table to figure out how to exist in this space. Certainly there are new crimes and new enemies to go along with all of the great content on the web.

I have a show in development that I think you guys will like.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

And to expand a little further on my example. I know some will argue that people will pay to see the movie if there is value there. But even if we assume that of all the people who see your movie, 95% of people are willing to pay. The 5% who don't want to pay, shouldn't watch the movie. Just because it's out there for "free" doesn't change anything. It's illegal.

I sense that most people here are on the same page with that and the real issue is with this proposed legislation.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Colin, I feel this is splitting hairs - whether in Canada or anywhere else. I'm also curious as to when Wikipedia became the final word on the law. But just going by that definition, isn't the internet downloader depriving the producer of the fee that is owed to him or her? In that case it is still theft.

Your whole argument is a fallacy though. You're trying to equate one action to another by subjective, abstract interpretations, I'm just arguing about law... The definition on Wikipedia is very similar to the definition in the Autralian Criminal Code, part 7.2, division 131:

131.1 Theft
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property

Whereas downloading a film is defined (from the Australian Copyright Act 1968, section 10) as 'creation of an infringing copy', where:

"infringing copy" means:
(c) in relation to a cinematograph film--a copy of the film;
being an article (which may be an electronic reproduction or copy of the work, recording, film, broadcast or edition) the making of which constituted an infringement of the copyright in the work, recording, film, broadcast or edition or, in the case of an article imported without the licence of the owner of the copyright, would have constituted an infringement of that copyright if the article had been made in Australia by the importer

There is simply no provision in the law (well, Australian law at least) that classifies copyright infringement as theft. You can argue what is worse all you want (and as I said, this is not to say that copyright infringement is not illegal and not wrong - I agree that we need our work to be covered by copyright although I do think that the term of copyright is too long - it should be no more than 25-35 years after publication), but the simple fact remains that you are comparing apples to oranges...

 

[Sergio Perez]

I think saying the internet is complete anarchy is a bit too much. The fact is, itunes store sells lots of movies and music. Saying that its impossible to sell creative works in the internet is definitely not true. I've bought, for example, canned music, royalty free music , graphic templates, etc. from the internet. Could i get those for free? Maybe. Companies like Red GIant Software, for example, even with piracy, are doing well with their plugins. So fundamentally what's the problem? Or does the current internet truly demands a "Big Brother"? Who will monitor this "Big Brother"? Its a very, very dangerous path, this one.

Many companies, creatives and content creators made themselves known and succeeded due to the internet. They were clever, used it, gained income from it- and continue to do so!

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I think saying the internet is complete anarchy is a bit too much. The fact is, itunes store sells lots of movies and music. Saying that its impossible to sell creative works in the internet is definitely not true. I've bought, for example, canned music, royalty free music , graphic templates, etc. from the internet. Could i get those for free? Maybe. Companies like Red GIant Software, for example, even with piracy, are doing well with their plugins. So fundamentally what's the problem? Or does the current internet truly demands a "Big Brother"? Who will monitor this "Big Brother"? Its a very, very dangerous path, this one.

Many companies, creatives and content creators made themselves known and succeeded due to the internet. They were clever, used it, gained income from it- and continue to do so!

Might want to check with Red Giant Software on that one. Have they opened their books? There have been a lot of cool companies that have thrown in the towel because of piracy of software. I think one of the great things companies have done is to offer students free versions that last through their time in college. That gets them trained on it, adding more potential for them to continue to use it and eventually pay for it when they are able to make money off of it. There are ways to combat this stuff. I don't think Big Brother controlling it is the right answer. But the web needs a moral compass that's for sure.

 

[PatrickW]

If you make a product and a small % of the total audience steals it and your still profitable, then thats shrink and the cost of doing business. Sometimes theft drives sales.

If you have a product and theft its such an egregious problem, maybe you have to think, what am I doing wrong? How have I not met the needs of my customer, who I need to continue to try to win his dollars, I can't just sit complacently and milk cashcows.

Hollywood and TV have failed to adapt and continue to give the customer what they really want.

 

[PatrickW]

I'm also appalled that Megaupload.com gets taken down and yet ThePirateBay is still thriving. There is NOTHING that is legit on those torrent lists..

they have tried to shut down TPB, but they are fairly decentralized and good at moving around.

there is free movies and music on TPB that are public domain, and free software eg...
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4582957/slackware-12.2-dvd-iso



Doesn't mean there isn't a shit ton (majority) of pirated stuff.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

The irony behind megaupload is you needed to buy an account to upload and share items... or download lots of stuff quickly.

Now imagine what things would be like if the big studios setup a site just like that themselves.... All those millions of dollars would be theirs. If you ask me, it looks like the business model they should have adopted for themselves. Theatrical release, then bluray sales, then paid uploads to their site to share it with others.

Yep. That's the free market finding a way. SOPA and PIPA are just classical American Fascism - the losers of business trying to use government to shut down competition.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

I don't wanna make some people angry, but here it is. All those Crusaders against piracy actually understand that the hardcore "thiefs" will figure out something else than megaupload kind of sites and torrent sites and still be getting all the *free* digital copies of books, magazines, music and movies, right? There's such things as e2k network still in existence, although it's not as convenient as you-name-it streaming video service. That very group of people will never pay a dollar and continue to commit "stealing" even harder than before, just to the mental image of pissed off Hollywood mega mogul (pictured). Another large group of people like you and me prefer convenient options of digital delivery like Netflix. Things like STEAM really changed gaming business and a lot of people are happy to pay few dollars, but still there are those who want to download for free, some of them buying things they enjoyed after they "pirated" it, some of them will never do that, this is life. Industry should deal with it and try to adapt, applying modern business-models in the world of brave new broadband internet-age. It's very hard for studios to be, you know, mobile, highly efficient and cost-effective and the visual effects still cost who knows how much even in house, but if we look at the music industry as it's XX-century term - it's going away. Things like Soundcloud or Jamendo, where artists are able to upload their work, let users listen *or* download it for free *and* receive all the money directly (so the audience knows what they're paying for and to whom) are growing right now. It's not working for TV shows or feature films, but in the digital age many musicians don't need huge music distributors to reach their existing and potential audience. Promotion? Well, Internet does that as well. I'm confident to say that the good half of their current music library is far superior in quality to most of so called music on the mainstream radio or tv.

Oh gosh what have I done. I just posted copyrighted picture of Tom Cruise as a movie character Les Grossman. I'm screwed!

 

[Jim McKinney]

Your whole argument is a fallacy though. You're trying to equate one action to another by subjective, abstract interpretations, I'm just arguing about law...

I'm not so sure what is so abstract or subjective about my point.

There is simply no provision in the law (well, Australian law at least) that classifies copyright infringement as theft. You can argue what is worse all you want (and as I said, this is not to say that copyright infringement is not illegal and not wrong . . .

I absolutely agree that copyright infringement is not legally theft in the criminal sense (though in torts, it could amount to the same thing in most situations). But one can be guilty of both copyright infringement AND theft. (BTW, copyright laws were initially written to keep others from stealing your intellectual property and commercially selling it without giving you any recompense.)

But I don't really wish to quibble as though we were attorneys. I almost didn't respond to your post for that very reason. My main point is that many people out there will go through all sorts of rationalizations and mental contortions to justify this sort of behavior. It is still taking something that doesn't belong to you and not paying for it. It is WRONG, call it what you will.

I agree that we need our work to be covered by copyright although I do think that the term of copyright is too long - it should be no more than 25-35 years after publication), but the simple fact remains that you are comparing apples to oranges...

I tend to agree with you here. But that's a separate matter.

 

[António Fagundes]

Funny how so many people worry about the companies that get smacked over dvd profits but don't say a word about all the other people that work in the industry. Grips, electricians, production assistants, etc... these people work their asses off on any film and don't get a single penny for their work being distributed on DVD... funny thing this all copyright infringement, it might be a lot of things, but it certainly is not fair!

 

[Jim McKinney]

Funny how so many people worry about the companies that get smacked over dvd profits but don't say a word about all the other people that work in the industry. Grips, electricians, production assistants, etc... these people work their asses off on any film and don't get a single penny for their work being distributed on DVD... funny thing this all copyright infringement, it might be a lot of things, but it certainly is not fair!

Well that (DVD sales and VOD), is something the unions and the producers need to work out. But no matter how one slices the pie, if piracy makes it a smaller and smaller pie (which it is doing), then everybody gets a smaller portion of that pie. And yes, we do work our asses off. Not just the studios and the producers, but the grips and everyone else will make less money and/or work fewer projects.

It IS an issue for the so-called "little guy." Pirates are screwing us.

 

[Harva Raj]

Funny how so many people worry about the companies that get smacked over dvd profits but don't say a word about all the other people that work in the industry. Grips, electricians, production assistants, etc... these people work their asses off on any film and don't get a single penny for their work being distributed on DVD... funny thing this all copyright infringement, it might be a lot of things, but it certainly is not fair!

Seconded. The most important thing about this law is about salaries. Is it fair that employees from other industries like banking or medical earn more money then creative industry employees? Our works is being stole in the name of 'internet entitlement' by youtube/megauploads/google/piratebay. The companies pocket billions and pay fat salaries for their employees. and we get nothing. NOT DAME FAIR!

 

[Jim McKinney]

To change direction here (in a more hopefully constructive way), I'd like to recommend this New York Times article about Chris Dodd recommending a summit between the MPPA and Silicon Valley, as a bit of interesting news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/t...ley-to-meet.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

We need to get tougher on anti-piracy measures. We also need to allow and foster entrepreneurial-ism in both industries. Both industries are vital to our country. But of paramount importance, is that such anti-piracy measures don't unduly infringe on our rights as human beings. Keeping a free and open (but lawful) internet is essential.

 

[M Most]

Funny how so many people worry about the companies that get smacked over dvd profits but don't say a word about all the other people that work in the industry. Grips, electricians, production assistants, etc... these people work their asses off on any film and don't get a single penny for their work being distributed on DVD... funny thing this all copyright infringement, it might be a lot of things, but it certainly is not fair!

Actually, that's not how it works. Things like DVD and streaming sales are vitally important for crew members who work under a union contract because the health plan is largely funded by those things in the form of residuals. And before you say "only writers, directors, and actors get residuals", that's not the case. Residuals are paid to every craft under an IA contract as well as the DGA, WGA, and SAG/AFTRA contract. The difference is that residuals are paid directly to the artists in the case of the writers, directors and actors, but they are paid into a general fund in the case of the IA locals. That fund allows the health and pension plan to exist, as well as other things provided by Contract Services, such as the safety program. So the next time someone who works on a crew tells you that he or she doesn't get residuals, or that piracy doesn't affect their ability to continue their career and have things like health insurance, or that the rise of digital piracy only affects studios, you'll know that's not the case. And I encourage you to let them know, too.

 

[Colin Sheldon]

Colin, I feel this is splitting hairs - whether in Canada or anywhere else. I'm also curious as to when Wikipedia became the final word on the law. But just going by that definition, isn't the internet downloader depriving the producer of the fee that is owed to him or her? In that case it is still theft.

Or to put it another way, a producer who hires me to work for a day, and then never pays me - are you saying he is not a thief? I would say he is a Thief.

Wikipiedia was referencing webster's dictionary, which is definitely a valid place to find a definition. In Canada the criminal code is on a federal level which makes it easier reference. I don't have the time or inclination to look into the definition in every US state. As for your producer example, you can call him anything you like, but you wouldn't go to the Police and file charges, you would launch a civil suit to get your lost wages. Now lets say that you never actually agreed on the amount that you would get paid... then all of a sudden things become more complicated when you go to file your lawsuit.

Copyright is more complicated then theft because there is not a set value for a copyrighted work, and rather then being a real cost to the victim there is only a perceived loss - Money that could have/should have been made which makes it much more difficult to quantify. If the cost of a starbucks were to double or triple in price would that change your purchasing habits? Of course, the same is true of copyright infringement - what people do for free is different then what they pay for. All we can do is guess at what the loss really is.

The other thing that makes copyright infringement complicated is that often times producers essentially give their product away for free. Through TV broadcast and Radio it is possible to enjoy a copyrighted work without any cost beyond that which is required to decode the signal. So it's no wonder that the general public doesn't perceive them as having any real value. I am fully aware that advertisers finance the broadcasts, but there is no direct cost to the consumer.

Another factor that has muddied the waters is the introduction of VHS/PVRs. They have allowed for a few decades now the ability to "time shift" a program to be watched when it is convenient for the consumer... and to skip the advertisements. Cable companies have been telling people for a decade now that it's ok to record a program on my PVR, to watch it when i want and to skip the advertisements. So if my PVR gets full, is it ok to transfer the recorded show/movie onto a different external hard drive? Since this is a feature advertised by cable companies the perception is yes. And if it's on a hard drive, can i watch it on my computer instead of my TV? How about my iphone? Or if I watch it on my TV through my PVR it's ok, but if I stream it through my PS3 then it's illegal? If I paid for cable then I have purchased a license to view the copyrighted content... and why if I have legitimately paid for a product can the producer tell me how and when to use that product? Obviously they can, but it isn't something that is intuitive. When people buy something they expect to own it - to have some degree of control over the item that was purchased.

It's also been legal to share physical copies of licensed copyright material. One could rent or borrow movies, music, etc. from friends family or acquaintances. With the end of physical media (and the ability to have friends worldwide) this has gotten a lot more complicated. The answer the copyright holders seem to have is to take this right away from the consumers - to basically eliminate the right to lend, resell, etc, something that has been purchased.

Yes there is a piracy problem. Yes it should be dealt with. But there is also a problem with the system - the point of copyright isn't to make people money, it is to encourage creativity. Of course profitability is an essential element of encouraging creativity, but it is not the only element. All copyright laws need to be judged by that criteria. The second criteria, in my opinion, is that if people choose to license their copyrighted works, then the consumer also has rights. A balance needs to be found between the rights of the content creator, and the rights of the consumer.

When you compare SOPA against that criteria, in my opinion, it doesn't strike a fair balance. Especially since the law has international consequences.

it is written so any website domain name registered in the United States is treated as if it were a U.S. page. That means any website that ends in .com, .net or .org - Postmedia News' website, canada.com, included - accused of breaching copyright could be blocked by a U.S. court.

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/What+SOPA+means+Canada/6019152/story.html#ixzz1jxoxNWgk

 

[Antony M]

The movie company suffers a very tangible and quantifiable loss when you visit a friend and watch a movie they've bought: the $X it should receive from a ticket sale or DVD rental / purchase. It is as morally reprehensible as any other type of theft, if one is to download a movie and then watch it for entertainment.

Albert

But the next bill they pass will outlaw you being friends with someone who already owns a DVD.

Simple solution


Theft is when you pay good money to see a film which is complete sh*t and the movie theatre (cinema) won't give you a refund.
What other business could get away with that?

If you buy a car which is rubbish, you get your money back.
If you go for a meal which is disgusting, you don't pay for it.

 

[AndrewThomas]

Bills like SOPA and PIPA will be used as much to combat digital piracy as the PATRIOT Act is used to combat terrorism.

Also, that video of Ms. Blakely arguing for fashion industry style lack of protection seemingly compares content creators stealing each others work to content consumers stealing content creators work...