Despite the conventional wisdom that BitTorrent websites and illegal downloading are destroying the fabric of entertainment industries, a number of advocates and activists believe that piracy can help independent filmmakers as both a distribution mechanism and promotional tool.
So when i finish my next film and sell it on Amazon or Netflixs, and sell my first copy and that person uploads it on Pirate Bay or Demonoid and after few days ends up on all the flash movie sites, and has been downloaded 5 million times yet in the next six months my film only sells 3 DVD at $12, how does this help the independent filmmaker, nobody came knocking on my door from Hollywood after watching my movie, i lost all the money i put into the project, i have no home and no job and now live on welfare handouts, yet the people sharing my movie on the internet are making money from google ads, is this your RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-21 17:01
The Arctic Monkeys freely distributed their first few singles. Their first paid for concert was sold out and everyone their knew all the lyrics of their songs. They're still making music today.
Name:
!Mkji8CrYQc2011-11-21 17:39
>>2 This is about films not music, two different things.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-21 18:57
>>3
Oh, okay, I guess that makes it totally irrelevant because the medium was different.
Yes, it would! how many concert Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson concerts have you be too?
A signer can do many concerts, where a filmmaker only has one film!
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-22 12:44
>A signer can do many concerts, where a filmmaker only has one film!
But... that's a terrible example. A film can be seen multiple times in the cinema by any one person and then again when it comes out on DVD. And then you get tired of one film then you go make a new one, the same way a musicians records new songs.
Name:
!Mkji8CrYQc2011-11-22 13:16
>>6 And how would you(and why would you) make that next film without the profits from the first movie? now i'm bankrupt after all the piracy.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-22 14:57
>>7
Well, your scenario is unrealistic to start with. If the film was truly that popular then your sales would easily make you a profit, 99% piracy rates just don't exist in reality unless your product was truly terrible and not worth anything to being with.
Name:
anon2011-11-22 15:49
>>8 Maybe because the fact that downloaders just download for the sake of it, and don't give a fucking shit if the movie is great or terrible, it just need to be free.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-23 12:40
>>9
But if they don't give a fuck either way then it's not like they would have paid to see it if they couldn't have downloaded it. They have no impact either way.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-23 16:35
So Obama sold us out again.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-23 17:16
It's illegal, immoral, and shouldn't happen.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-23 19:40
>It's illegal, immoral, and shouldn't happen.
Copyright is the right to copy. Your fair use rights are a liberty that was stolen by crooked politicians. Sharing knowledge itself in a non-profit fashion is not immoral.
Sheeple....
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-23 20:07
well if it wasnt so expensive i wouldnt download it
This guy.
I would never get television to watch family guy. It's just free and a waste of time so I download it for free.
If Piracy didn't exist, we'd simply see more free media out there. Maybe not the same quality, but it'd be out there. I think piracy rates unreasonably inflate the interest of things. The producer un-realistically assumes all those downloaders would have paid 9.99 for his shitty movie on iTunes he's mistaken. The market would be MUCH smaller, production in the first place would be MUCH harder.
This doesn't make it MORAL to do so, just sayin. I feel for the creators of indie projects. It sucks. They just gotta find new ways to make $ with the tactile product. Maybe they SHOULD be having "concerts".. something original to draw people into an experience that is not portable to a computer screen.
Get your facts right first, my movie is $2.99 to download or $9.99 for the dvd, is that too much to pay for a 90mins movie and 3 hours of extras.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-24 9:01
>>15
Considering a family guy episode can be anywhere between 200-400 mbs it might actually be cheaper to get a TV.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-25 11:22
A buyer always buys whatever costs less, if you had to chose, in the same store, between two items with no difference between them, except the price, you would always pick up the cheapest.
How do you do it in the net environment?
An author puts his movie for sale on the net for 10 cents.
A pirate puts the same film available for free.
You are in the same store and your are going to download the cheapest.
How is the author going to make money?
Perhaps trough publicity...
that's how pirates make their money, without having to bother in buying instruments, renting a studio, paying musicians, technicians, promoting costs, graphic art work...
pirates don't even have to worry about the law or the tax collector, their 'work' is tax free.
If creators have people representing them, it's because they need help in areas that they don't feel at ease in dealing with. It's the creators decision to be well or badly represented, the creator is the one that's going to suffer the consequences of a possible bad choice.
Since WWW means World Wild Web, it needs to be policed.
Citizens that have Law and order in the UK, have to thank street cameras that identified the looters in the recent riots.
If you like films, music, literature...
Don´t kill the hen that lays golden eggs,
feed it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-25 11:25
Isp's (BT) have grown and become big on the expense of the music and movie industry, without paying a single cent, just by simply knowingly allowing forbidden transactions to be done in their store.
For free or paying for it, the public wants films and music.
Films and music cost money to be made.
Art creators are people that have the same needs as ordinary people, they can´t live only by breathing air, so they should be the only ones to decide if their work is to be given for free or not.
As it has been proven more than once, the net environment isn't safe, secure business deals on the net is unreal, so is ending piracy.
Drug trafficking an consumption will never end, but the law enforcement agents have made it a risky business.
Why shouldn't the same be done with copyright infringement?
And why would you buy if you have seen said movie!
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-25 19:20
>>22
That question is completely irrelevant to point being made. If someone isn't going to spend money either way, if there was piracy or not, it has NO EFFECT. In fact, no, that's not right. If the person who was never going to spend money either way downloads it and talks about the film with someone else then you've just got free advertising.
But to answer your question as a seperate issue; you'd buy it if you wants to contribute towards what you thought was a good product because you want to see more.
>>24 Hell yeah piracy is good and its all free too!
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-26 14:48
>>24
Well, maybe when you get a job and learn how to uses commas you will feel differently and start paying for things you want. It's remarkable how income changes you in that way.
>>27
Ah, so you'll pay something then? Stay in school, kid.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-27 19:40
>>28
You ain't never seen no double negatives before?
Name:
!Mkji8CrYQc2011-11-29 16:10
Truth is, most of you MPAA/RIAA haters won't shell out even 5 dollars a month to support the movie/music industry in regards to dvd, CD, Vinyl and MP3 sales. Please do NOT reply back by saying “I support artists by buying merch and going to concerts” because that is NOT fair to the labels who spend thousands of dollars making the artist accessible enough for you to even know they exist.
The reason an “artist never makes money from the record label” is because, due to illegal downloads, the label doesn't make money off the artist.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-29 16:53
The biggest mystery in this scam of the century is why the ISP's don't pay any copyright fees, any other media broadcasting outlet in the western far from civilized world does, radio, tv, cable, restaurants.
but not the Internet connection providers who knows for once exactly what files are flying around out there.
Name:
Anonymous2011-11-30 0:34
NOT fair to the labels who spend thousands of dollars making the artist accessible enough for you to even know they exist.
Can't tell if trolling....
Yeah, cause I really need a record label to make music "accessible". That's what the internet is for you fucking dipshit.
>>35 I love the way Obama put the RIAA and MPAA in charge the Judaical system. [citation needed]
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-05 20:05
Pirates are not paying customers.
Pirates are not "customers" at all.
Pirates are thieves.
Thieves are not customers because they do not buy.
You have to buy to be a customer.
Pirates and thieves are consumers.
Rats, termites, and boll weevils are also consumers.
But they are not customers because they do not buy what they consume.
A customer is a consumer.
A consumer is not necessarily a customer.
Lot's of people seem to have difficulty understanding that very simple fact.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-06 0:16
>Pirates and thieves are consumers.
Copying 1's and 0's is not stealing.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-06 0:32
>>37
Obama put a lot of RIAA and MPAA goons into key positions within the Judaical system. He's been doing this for 3 years now. Suddenly, Obama is having the "copy police" attack file sharing sites that don't host anything. The government can now take your domain without a court order. Obama is pushing to make copyright violations criminal and outlawing fair-use rights.
Hello, I'm Obama and I'm the 1%. Poor people don't need rights. They need more taxes and to be controlled.
>>40 Obama put a lot of RIAA and MPAA goons into key positions within the Judaical system.
So you still have nothing to cite this from. Not surprising. This isn't exactly anything new, anyway. Anyone that has been paying attention to governmental action against peer-to-peer file sharing since the days of Napster will realize that both parties (with the exception of a few) have been trying to pass legislation that will heavily hamper that sort of activity.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-06 22:14
>>42
And under Obama, the RIAA and MPAA get the express lane for everything they want.
It's funny how that internet freedom is so annoying to those with power. Censorship is the future. Hope and Change...heh.
Then theft doesn't mean anything anymore. Do you tell the police that a negro copied your bike and ran away with the copy but the original bike magically disappeared? Can I download your car?
Copyright is the right to copy. Funny how that got warped fast. Notice how you do the same thing with the word stealing? Good.
Truth is not an opinion. It is made of cold hard facts and not intentional misinterpretations of basic words.
>>43 It's funny how that internet freedom is so annoying to those with power.
Which is why it's important to stay updated on it and why it's important to fight to defend Internet freedom. This is why groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation exist. This isn't happening just because Obama's in office.
Well let me copy your credit card and lets see how happy you will be!
theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent. DIPSHIT
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 19:40
>>46
Copying the numbers or having them isn't illegal in itself. It's just numbers. Committing fraud by accessing other people's accounts is a crime. You can't even make a proper example. can you? Fraud != copying
>theft is the illegal taking of another person's property
You can't own ideas and words, retard. If they still have it, then it's not theft so once again you lost the argument. No need to get all pissy like a little girl because people can spot holes in your rather flimsy logic.
What you keep trying to describe is called intellectual property rights. It means you own the rights to sell and profit from IP. After a certain numbers of years. it become public property. This is because the founding fathers understood that authors needed to have first dibs on the sales of their works, but only for a limited time. This is because no one can truly own an idea. If it doesn't involve money being traded for it, then you are copying and sharing.
This is why it's called copyright infringement and not stealing, DIPSHIT. Have a nice day, kid.
Copyrights ware developed by jews to rip off all non jews.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-08 17:00
>>47it become public property. This is because the founding fathers understood that authors needed to have first dibs on the sales of their works, but only for a limited time.
Only in your retard country they do!
If i never give you permission to copy my IP its theft and still illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent. DIPSHIT
>>49
It's a shame. >>47 had a valid point too until he went retarded. Most theft deprives the original owner of their property. Intellectual property theft does not. The rules need to be rewritten in my opinion and it shouldn't be called theft. Like it or not, the internet has changed things drastically.
>i lost all the money i put into the project, i have no home and no job and now live on welfare handouts
Get a fucking job you stupid ass moron!
Flip a greasy burger or clean a shitty stool like everybody else.
You prioritized some gay movie idea over food and shelter expecting a return? :lol:what a faggot, maybe you can go join the occupy wallstreet retards in their tents
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-10 9:29
Oh, and P2P on!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-10 9:35
Fuck "intellectual property". There's things I thought of before famous faggots did, but they won the race to copyright or patent the idea. Your crappy band ain't making no dough? Tour, bitches!
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-10 18:56
>>54 You thought of nothing, your just some loser bitching about being a welfare bum living mammas basement, get over yourself, faggot.