Support the new laws!!!

[Anthony Gratl]

New measures are being taken to restrict your right to privacy and your freedom of speech.

Piracy is not the issue. ACTA is about circumventing the legal checks and balances and giving corporations quasi-judicial powers.

Look into ACTA, and let your Congressman or Senator (or MP in Canada) know that you cannot condone secret negotiations, circumventions of the democratic process, or infringements on your rights as a citizen.

+1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anthony Gratl]

Rob Ruffo..

I think your blinded by the outer shell..
just looking at what it does for anti- piracy.

Jeez I hope you're right Zak...and that he's just a little blinded....of the many that I talk to, i don't remember a single professional artist or filmmaker or musician who supports this or any other kind of draconian legislation.
I'd hate to think that rob gets paid to support and promote certain ideas on internet forums......how ironic would that be?

 

[Brent J. Craig]

The problem with ACTA is that everything is being done behind closed doors with absolutely no public input and so much secrecy that no ones even knows what will be in the final legislation!

ACTA is wrong, anti-democratic and one-sided.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Not quite sure I understand what you mean Gavin....

Even if they're public servants they aren't global public servants. They're at best public servants of the tax payers who fund their operations.

If you pay the TV fee in the UK you get BBC programming. I however in the US have spent $0 to fund BBC programming so as a US citizen who pays no taxes or BBC license fees I have no expectation of service from the BBC.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Even if they're public servants they aren't global public servants. They're at best public servants of the tax payers who fund their operations.

If you pay the TV fee in the UK you get BBC programming. I however in the US have spent $0 to fund BBC programming so as a US citizen who pays no taxes or BBC license fees I have no expectation of service from the BBC.

and I'm saying loose TV completely and start creating global internet channels. Bandwith is soon there.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Real indie producers can’t afford to make vanity projects that die because of piracy. Remember most indie projects take anywhere from 5 to 15 years to realize with many people working for free during development. How many projects can we lose to piracy before we give up with the indie model? We can only continue making films if we’re able to garner upfront distribution fees that can backfill the deferrals that so many people work on. I figure I only have 1 maybe 2 self financed projects in me, the rest will have to come from a profit model. Let’s face it we don’t have the money but more importantly we don’t have the time…​

Don't worry..

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I am also really concerned about just a few distribution giants having so much sway over what I watch, listen to or read (Amazon, Walmart). Will they also have any sway over internet distribution? Will some 'artistic' content be marginalized?

Again - don't worry. Their "sway" will be greatly diminished by processes that are already happening.

What's really going on here? Am I just being paranoid, or has Orwell come home to Roost? I understand the motive, but the response is positively terrifying.

I'm afraid it actually is ... I thought that these things happen only in ex-communist countries like mine, but no... it seems that some western nations experience even worse phenomena.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance


So I might echo this question:

What's really going on?

... but that's probably not the right thread and/or forum for this discussion...

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Jeez I hope you're right Zak...and that he's just a little blinded....of the many that I talk to, i don't remember a single professional artist or filmmaker or musician who supports this or any other kind of draconian legislation.
I'd hate to think that rob gets paid to support and promote certain ideas on internet forums......how ironic would that be?

I do get paid to support anti-piracy - I get paid by content creators to direct, write and edit copyright content (TV mostly). :closedeyes:

I have every right to think that the status quo is not OK. There may be problems with ACTRA (and keep in mind it is still in flux) but the aim of it is simply to yes, give back control to content creators - sometimes demonized as "greedy corporations" but sometimes also referred to as "most users on this forum". It makes me sick to think that the pretentious criminals who run Pirate Bay are the ones making the money off OUR HARD WORK.

ACTRA does not give anyone the right to read your e-mail, delete your blog posts, etc. If you think your government sucks, or that Walmart sucks, or whatever, you will have exactly the same right to say so online as before. the rest is a myth spread by 1 - People who want to just not pay for the software, movies and music they consume. The public has spoken, they want free steak and beer and don't understand why it not their right to get it. 2 - Right wingers who want to kill Hollywood. An audience financed (ticket sales, DVD sales/rentals, legal downloads )film cannot be controlled by corporations in quite the same, very direct way that a film paid for by ads of said corporations can. You could make a film about any point of view - say that gay sex is more natural than straight sex and if enough people would be willing to buy tickets you could get it out there and pay your bills. This is real free speech - if whatever you are saying is interesting enough to get an audience, they hear you. Good luck getting a conglomerate to finance such a film via ads, for fear of offending their shareholders. Good luck financing though adverts for local health food restaurants.

As far as music artists are concerned who say "sharing is great" I want to see some business degrees. I want to see proven expertise in money management. Most recording artists (not all mind you) I know are very good at blowing lots of money on parties, not so good at understanding anything about how it is made or managed. They are in it for the ego, so sharing with more fans gives them what they want. However, talk to directors, talk to producers, talk to people who have a sense of responsibility to the big picture, and you will see real support for new laws (maybe ACTRA is flawed, but some laws) to stop the shift of the value of ideas from a lot to nothing.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

and I'm saying loose TV completely and start creating global internet channels. Bandwith is soon there.

Fine, but if pirates offer an ad-free version, who pays for the content?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

The problem with ACTA is that everything is being done behind closed doors with absolutely no public input and so much secrecy that no ones even knows what will be in the final legislation!

ACTA is wrong, anti-democratic and one-sided.

The reason is the public has trouble understanding why they can't just keep getting free stuff. They feel someone else should pay for it. In L.A. or in Montreal we know lots of peopel who make a living from this, but in Kansas they see this myth of us in heads, we're all rich and basking by the pool, surely we don't need their $5 blockbuster rental fee. The reality is, although I do enjoy my nice martinis once in a while, we've (at my little prodco here) have come very close to losing our shirts many times.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Arrest everybody who's ever downloaded something illegal, several thousand- even better, arrest everybody who's done so without even knowing it. While at it, let's get thought crimes instated (Orwell came up with these how many decades ago- come on INTERPOL, catch up!). Great ideas, maybe between the video pirates, bad-thinkers and petty pot dealers, we can make sure that murderers and rapists don't get any room at the jailhouse inn. And once they're in there, damn it, we'll MAKE 'em buy our dribble!

I support my local video rental place- costs me a hell of a lot more than Netflix would (to which, am I the only non-member?)- but I know I'll be a Netflix, or whatever-Flix customer soon enough- there simply won't be DVDs a few years of internet bandwidth advancements from now. Sorry video rental shops, nothing is going to save you.

All this is only a problem to anybody whose glass is half empty, whether that person be in motion picture, music, print media, or... anything. But there are opportunities, new frontiers. Since the dawn of man, we've sought things to enrich our lives, sought the exchange of stories, and in spite of our outward appearances, I believe we've even sought common good for our fellow man. That means there's a Demand for art, and to exchange for art. If we applied some of our creativity and fortune (we're artists, right?) to these issues, they're not too far from working out into a whole new set of possibilities. Maybe we'll lose record stores and video rental shops, but we'll come out way ahead so long as we don't just plop on our asses and whine about change.

And Laws!? Big ass incredible fine laws that you don't know you're breaking!? There is no way to stop people with fear. Attempting to do so might cause serious repression, and in the end, birth some new and even more powerful force of counter culture. You go put somebody in jail for watching your movie for free, and when the poor bastard gets out, having lost his job, his family, and his future, he oughta go find the jerk who ratted him out and steal his whole fancy camera rig and tell a real story with it- and you can bet he'll stream that shit for free.

Take it easy, that's all. When cassette tapes came out, the industry flipped- suddenly the proletariat could make their own dupes without a vinyl press. Just think how much money has been made since then? I'd bet it's more than had been made on the music 'industry' in all the years of music prior, added together. So what if there's a lull right now? Let's chill and collect ourselves.

As far as these laws bringing money back to independent filmmakers- no way! Face it, everybody goes to the internet to see shit now, it's the proverbial fireside gathering. These laws will make it scary for viewers to look for stories. They'll go to the trusted sites with the trusted logos only. iTunes, etc. Making an independent film will become like making a tool company that's not named DeWalt and trying to sell it at Lowe's. I think the very shallowest independent filmmaker, the least conscious of the future, of the people, of the necessity to have open exchange, the filmmaker with the least focus on just telling their story, will be the independent filmmaker who supports these laws.

I'm much more worried about the opposite. That half billion dollar Avatar is going to ruin our game. That's some big money, and if that shit keeps up, us 2d storytellers are gonna end up with the thespians at the community theater, serving our wares to a stalwart, sub-cultural crowd- know any big shot producers who want to get behind that? And to be clear: not because of piracy (at least not what is being referred to here as piracy)- because of mega bucks made on a pop-gimmick movie.

I think you are very naive. I bet $100 here that you have never financed a feature or TV series. It costs money to "tell a story", lots of money. It takes years to become a great actor, years to become a good DP, etc. Who will take all these years if there is no money in the end? Rich kids?

Lots of indies succeeded in the 1990s - we had Blairwitch, we had Troubled Waters, and scores of others less known. The film business is not the hardware business. Besides, I don;t see how allowing piracy helps the situation.

No one goes to prison for unknowingly downloading illegal content. In France, they give you 3 warnings, and then disconnect your Internet. Besides, ignorance of the law is a weak defense at best.



I don't understand how viewers can't "look for stories" via legal means. If all you want is stories there is still the library

 

[Sid Idris]

Don't worry..

Thanks i feel better now.


Look don't take my comments as some sort of endorcement of ACTA or any other Draconian restrictions for that matter but your utopic vision of the digital future is an evolutionary process that by definition must work out its kinks by sacrificing our generation of independent producers. Sure maybe in some distant future the indie producer will be able to make films with little to no upfront cost and then somehow sell his/her product on the internet directly to viewers but in the meantime (until that all works itself out) our dicks are blowing in the wind...just saying.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

They'll keep pirating movies after that, but it will simply be easier (and cheaper) to get a source. :smilielol5:

You find this funny? You find the death of an industry I for one have devoted years of my life to funny? I think you laugh alone.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Many more jobs? These laws are designed to help corporations regain profit margins....remember the original file sharing program napster? It was in response to the gouging of consumers by music companies, who put out crap after crap, and overcharged for it.
Sounds like industry shill nonsense to me. You still gotta create content regardless, and last time I checked, the movie industry was breaking records at the box office......this in itself is not the reason to allow 'theft', but
the argument is circular in a constantly evolving technology world. The answer lies not in more and more draconian laws....and if you think it does, you should work for the iranian internet controllers, cause there you get to shut off
the taps. Would you call Iran a democracy?

- Huge blockbusters, the kind that work in theaters, not home-video were responsible for most of this. It has become almost impossible to produce an small indy thriller or oddball romcom, for example, and their number has dwindled greatly.

- Again with this greedy corporations business. If they make money, or more importantly know they COULD make money from a quirky little film, they have money to invest in young writers and young directors and so on. If they have no money, where will the money for salaries come from? Besides, many prodcos are small outfits with 10 or less employees full time.

- I would not call Iran a democracy, but no one suggesting censoring anything but illegal file sharing via very soft penalties like France's 3-strikes system. I would also not call a lawless society a democracy.

- You sound very young. You should learn to think over what popular opinion and the cool crowd says, and not just accept it at face value.

- This is a real name forum.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

The ones that lose most from piracy are the big music labels and home movie distributors. Who cares about them?

The small indie guys are screwed in each case, piracy or no piracy. Something more, with Internet and "pirate" technology, indies will get more and better opportunities to be noticed and distributed.

The big labels and home film distributors as we know them now, will disappear and web promoters of content will come in their place.

It might sound absurd, but all of this is a good thing for the industry, especially for indies. It is shaking and decentralizing the distribution models and bringing a more balanced and fair status-quo in these fields.

Such is the Way of the Force...

Your grip on reality is tenuous. I live perfectly well from the money we get from large and small corporations, and so do most on this forum, otherwise where did we find 30K for a camera?

As far as web promoters, if there is no money to be made, what will they promote? Why? Vimeo has some interesting content sometimes, but rarely. Mostly it's clumsy, badly acted, etc. If there was no industry to hope to get into, most Vimeo posters would give up anyway. The best stuff there is posted by people hoping for paying jobs, and there has to BE paying jobs for them to hope for them.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

As a side comment, people talk about freedom. What piracy does is FORCE content creators to give their content away for free. How is that freedom when it removes choice?

 

[PatrickW]

As a side comment, people talk about freedom. What piracy does is FORCE content creators to give their content away for free. How is that freedom when it removes choice?

Piracy does not force content creators (or owners of said content) away for free.

Simply because Avatar is availible on the Pirate Bay, does not mean that James Cameron must give his film away for free. In fact he continues to make money from it.

Piracy gives people without the money the choice to see and hear something.

 

[David Rasberry]

I consider piracy to be theft of content for resale. I.E. rip-offs of Avatar available on DVD for 5 bucks at the local flea market. These people I have no sympathy with. They are crooks and deserve to be caught and punished.
Free content sharing is a more complex and different issue altogether. Where do you draw the line? What is fair use and what isn't? Are content makers and distributors really losing money in this case? Not necessarily. Most people who share content for free would not buy it anyway and many people who sample free content go on to buy what they like, in some cases were it not for the free sample they may not have known about it at all.
How an indie manages this potent viral marketing medium that is the Internet can possibly have tremendous impact on income over the life of a program. Fact is it may be the only effective market for most small productions in the future. There are less than 200 films a year that make it into wide theatrical release in the US. Yet Sundance alone gets as many as 9000 feature entries in a year. Most of these never make their production costs and we never hear about or see them. That unfortunately is the reality of this industry if you dream of making narrative films.
"Free" content sharing could make a lot of independent films more money than they would ever see otherwise.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

I do get paid to support anti-piracy - I get paid by content creators to direct, write and edit copyright content (TV mostly). :closedeyes:

And so, if you do this out of Canada, which google seems to indicate that you do, most of that is paid for by the canadian people, through various funds and tax credit programs.
So explain to me why subsidized programming should be the exclusive domain of those who created it, if they didn't pay to make it in the first place?

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

You can't fight piracy, you can only compete with it...

And please stop with this "free" thing. Nothing is free in the Internet, since you have to PAY in order to ACCESS the Internet. Comprende?

And decent connections don't come cheap... even in the Wild East. :yesnod:

Food for thought...