Support the new laws!!!

[Rob Ruffo]

Distribution is a problem easily solved with digital IP distribution.

Another serious problem, is that online content is availible globally: but many advertizing deals are regional. However, this again may soon be a thing of the past using technology to solve the problem. Put a green screen in your finished product and you can slip in regional banner ads, or even target the ads to individual viewer. This is what could pay for the future of free online content.

But the whole reason why movies are less bland than TV, more willing to have a counter-cultural point of view is that they are not censored by the fear of offending sponsors. If media were only ad-driven then we would never see anything critical of, say cars, or pro mass-transit, or critical of eating processed packaged food because anything likely to offend a large group of sponsors would be nixed by suits. For DVD and B.O. sales you just need to be interesting and the more controversial the better.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

also... not condoning this, but pirates can easily block isp's from tracking them.. so if people want to steal.. they will still steal..

We're talking about making it inconvenient for Uncle Joe and Aunt Sally, not for I.T. pros.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Comparison of the "theft" of intangible products and real things is not simple. Your marketbase (customers) understands that but you do not. Digital broke the media business model.

While the business side of big media benifits from piracy in terms of market research. Yes the big studios track what people download, and use that data to make money. Then they go ahead and fine and imprison people for "sharing" files.

The business of media has not evolved with the technology that is so vital to the industry, but most importantly the industry has not kept up with what consumers actually want.

You are long on mindlessly repeating trendy cliches (which are really myths), and short on facts my friend.

Records and software and movies have always been about the very high cost of making the first copy (millions) and a very low per-unit cost. The per unit cost is lower now, and consumers have access to duplication tools, but it was always close to nothing, even in the age of vinyl and the mechanical printing press Other things follow that model, computer chips, pharmaceuticals, even Red cams.

This is an information economy where physical goods consist of a shockingly low percentage of GNP. If you can steal all information, who would they sell these facts to?

BTW - I have seen this information, and it is only used to determine which
types of films are most affected by piracy. In other words it is used to gather information on how to sell legitimate tickets and DVDs - there is no direct money in it and if legit sales were zero, no would be no value in this data at all.

I recently saw this data being used to defend a film pitch targeted to older viewers as they are less piracy prone. If you like films addressed to older, more conservative people, then piracy is your friend.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Distribution is a problem easily solved with digital IP distribution.

Another serious problem, is that online content is availible globally: but many advertizing deals are regional. However, this again may soon be a thing of the past using technology to solve the problem. Put a green screen in your finished product and you can slip in regional banner ads, or even target the ads to individual viewer. This is what could pay for the future of free online content.

Actually it's the non online distribution that's the problem. It's what keeps it regional also on the internet. If you're outside the US you will understand. It's a distribution system that they're not keen on letting go. A show (first season) is worth millions more the second season when it has proven itself a hit. By then the first season have a greater value when being sold to foreign channels. Then it will take some time for the channels to have it in their schedule so a lot of the times it takes an additional season for the 1st season to air.

Problem is that we don't want to wait for 2 seasons to see what we already know is a good show/series and today it's possible to find it in other means.

Same goes for DVD/Blu ray etc - it's all about still trying to get more for them by letting the consumer wait. Different distribution channels want the rights to show it before others

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I'm not in favor of any law that will give large corporations more power to control what we see and hear, pirated or not. It's bad enough as it is and the internet is the only place where there is any real freedom of effective public expression left. There is already some fear driven censorship by ISP's for situations where fair use practices should apply. Posting or sharing very short clips or excerpts from a TV show for instance.

NO ONE is talking about censoring anything other than flagrantly illegal acts in these talks: credit card info, kiddies porn and piracy. These things should not exist (in the case of kiddie porn, I say life without parole would be fine, especially if the other prisoners were informed that you were a pedophile, via a weekly newsletter) .

It makes NO SENSE to say that this will give large corps more power. In fact, when DVD piracy was lower it allowed the production of many more indy films with contrarian points of view. Ad-driven media, as mentioned, is most prone to corporate control. Don't even get me started on the pablum that is the result of state-sponsored media. Ever wondered why so many Canadian filsm look almost the same? That is because at any given time they reflect only the tastes and values of those very few people (sometimes just one person) in charge of signing grant checks here, not the varied tastes of an audience population.

No one is talking about stopping blogs, or stopping Vimeo or Youtube. I really do not think posting someone else's clips is a very noble or special form of self-expression. It is not a real art-form worth defending at the cost of losing so many others in whole or in part.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Actually it's the non online distribution that's the problem. It's what keeps it regional also on the internet. If you're outside the US you will understand. It's a distribution system that they're not keen on letting go. A show (first season) is worth millions more the second season when it has proven itself a hit. By then the first season have a greater value when being sold to foreign channels. Then it will take some time for the channels to have it in their schedule so a lot of the times it takes an additional season for the 1st season to air.

Problem is that we don't want to wait for 2 seasons to see what we already know is a good show/series and today it's possible to find it in other means.

Same goes for DVD/Blu ray etc - it's all about still trying to get more for them by letting the consumer wait. Different distribution channels want the rights to show it before others

But it's THEIR content - their right to do whatever they want with it. If they had not made the show, then other countries would have nothing to complain about missing. How is it that TV producers owe anybody access of any kind to what they produce? They are not public servants.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Until market penetration for streaming access for movies at a reasonable price is established, people will continue to pirate content.

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

 

[Anthony Gratl]

this law coudl work though, other measures have not. This law, if passed, will be a huge boon to our industry. It will mean many more of our friends with jobs.

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?

 

[Anthony Gratl]

But it's THEIR content - their right to do whatever they want with it. If they had not made the show, then other countries would have nothing to complain about missing. How is it that TV producers owe anybody access of any kind to what they produce? They are not public servants.

They owe because their content is generously subsided by the public purse in most countries of the world. So in a roundabout way, they are public servants. Part time.

Out of curiosity and with tongue in cheek, got some links to your work Rob?

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

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...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

They owe because their content is generously subsided by the public purse in most countries of the world. So in a roundabout way, they are public servants. Part time.

Out of curiosity and with tongue in cheek, got some links to your work Rob?

Yeah but why should the British tax payer subsidize my TV viewing in the US?

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

But it's THEIR content - their right to do whatever they want with it. If they had not made the show, then other countries would have nothing to complain about missing. How is it that TV producers owe anybody access of any kind to what they produce? They are not public servants.

?????????

No one is talking about owning anyone anything?

We're talking about adjusting business models as times are changing. I'm not saying that piracy is right. I'm just saying that times are different. When I was a kid we would wait months, even years, for a film to come to the cinema in sweden. Those days are over as content is available immediately.

Therefor it's important to realise and consider these facts. People I know that are or have downloaded copyrighted material would easily pay for it if it had been available. It doesn't justify what they did, but it explains one of the problems.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Rob Ruffo..

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

but this law would do more than that.. it would literally shut down the internet.

everyone has copywritten material on their computer (unless its brand new and they dont have the internet)

this law would make the isp's block access to anyone who has this material on their computer, and Fine them huge numbers.

not a good thing my friend

 

[PatrickW]

Ever wondered why so many Canadian filsm look almost the same? That is because at any given time they reflect only the tastes and values of those very few people (sometimes just one person) in charge of signing grant checks here, not the varied tastes of an audience population.

No one is talking about stopping blogs, or stopping Vimeo or Youtube. I really do not think posting someone else's clips is a very noble or special form of self-expression. It is not a real art-form worth defending at the cost of losing so many others in whole or in part.

Trailer Park Boys TV and movies were made with Canadian Government money, and you would be hard pressed to say that that show was like other Canadian shows...

Past ProIP laws have degraded online services like youtube. I used to have some nice videos I made of photos I took, set to some nice songs: what I considered fair use of other peoples music. Not many people viewed them, but a few really enjoyed them. Now they have no music and are lame slideshows, because the record company thought I was stealing their music.

To me, the media arts: film, TV, music... are inherintly part of the culture we live in, while yes they cost money to make and those who make them professionally need to make a living, there is some responibility of the artist to share the art with society.
Making awesome films is great, but its better if people SEE them, feel them, and talk about them. Viewers add value to to art.
If viewers no longer want to drop $10 for a theater ticket, or $25 bucks for a DVD, then content distributors need to figure out: how can we get people to watch this, and still bring in some income? This question does not have one single answer, and in many cases this question needs many answers to work together.

Years ago, the music industry was pumping out expensive garbage, and online filesharing threatened to ruin the industry, not the art form. Today Apple has risen to provide one answer to the industry's failings with the iTunes service.

It is painful to watch such a great bastion of freedom and openness such as the internet being destroyed by lobbyists for the big media corparations whos only goal is to continue to reap incredible profits, instead of investing in the future of the marketplace.

 

[Charles Angus]

New measures are being taken by governments to protect the value of ideas and our very, very hard work.

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.

 

[Chris Pickle]

Various thoughts:

- A man backs his Ford truck up to the back door of a warehouse that sells stolen DVDs. He loads up a box of DVDs and takes them home. The DVD producer / studio sues Ford?

- I pay for cable. A large bundle which includes stuff I don't watch. I miss an episode of "Breaking Bad". The show desperately wants me to be a fan, but only if it's on their schedule? In this day and age? I'm willing to pay, let's say $2.50 per episode on iTunes, and I'll live with a couple of commercials as part of the download. Nope, not available.

- I buy my son older movies (cheap) from iTunes for his iTouch. He loves them, and it's easy for me. Seems like a great model. Then I see a "first run" movies for 20 bucks or more, but I'm not getting the DVD, or the extras, nothing. Seems a bit odd. I could probably buy a first run movie at Walmart cheaper then a digital copy on iTunes? Doesn't make sense.

- Distributors / Studios want to use modern tools to distribute but keep their old profit model. Somethings gotta give.

And I'm an artist who really values all this stuff.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

Isn't the solution in controlling distribution? I understand the challenge because unlike durable goods, most of our digitized media is in some way or another fairly easy to copy.

I think the answer will come from technology but I don't think it should come at the cost of privacy or give corporations more power than they already have. We already live in the United States of WalMart as it is.

Thinking about distribution, consider the following contrasts...

Red controls their distribution, they alone sell the Red One camera, until it's owned by a consumer who can then do what ever they want with it. But they control what a new camera costs because they mandate a single point of purchase.

Panavision doesn't sell their equipment (at least they didn't use too) so they control their product for it's entire life cycle. They force you to rent and make profit from that.

Apple sells directly to the consumer online, at their stores, and they negotiate prices with third party vendors to sell pre-configured setups at a discount. They still mandate who distributes their stuff, but have limited control over what it sells for, since in the end... everything must go, and vendors like MacMall negotiate the ability to sell at prices they set.

WalMart sells things other people make, but mandate the price point at which they sell them, so if a vendor want's to sell via WalMart, to reach a certain base or demographic, they are forced to lower the price, which in turn, makes them raise their prices for other vendors. WalMart also dictates things like return policy, shelf placement, etc. It's the anthesis of controlling distribution from a vendors position.

...

Since films and music are in some ways intellectual property, perhaps the industry could adapt, with the help of technology, an example more akin to Panavision's business model. Making the art a service provided instead of a physical commodity. Maybe it's a new format that erases itself or charges a pay by play fee to an account, with players that work with this format. If you consider the current distribution network is more akin to the WalMart syndrome, where as an example Apple mandates the price per song or you don't get to sell here, WalMart mandates you clean up lyrics or you don't sell here, etc.

It's a brave new world... why not think in a brave new way, rather than try to police my internet connection.

Just some random thoughts, while I run checksums on my Red drives. Feel free to shoot 'em down.

 

[Sid Idris]

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...

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…​

 

[alexwhitmer]

I guess what is so unsettling for me here is knowing that everything I read, look up, and accidentally open is being watched. Everything!

Will my emails also be monitored for attaching Quicktime files?

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?

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.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

Yeah but why should the British tax payer subsidize my TV viewing in the US?

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