A Few Words About A few words about...™ Vendors, film piracy and national security (2 Viewers)

[Persianimmortal]

You work in the film business and do not find it disturbing that people are downloading films without paying for the right to do so.

Some people love to stick their head in the sand, and assume that as long as something bad isn't affecting them personally, that it's not worth doing anything about. Which is where the the poem First They Came comes to mind.

There's plenty of examples of piracy directly affecting small independent filmmakers, and not the big greedy faceless corporations, or monolithic Hollywood. Here's just one example where an indie filmmaker explains that:

“I always knew the film would end up on the torrent sites,” he writes in an email, “and that there would be nothing I could do about it. If the major studios can’t stop piracy, surely an indie producer such as myself can do nothing.” But he wasn’t prepared for his film to show up three weeks before the film was commercially available, when whatever word-of-mouth to be gained by the filesharing couldn’t lead to sales.

Some more examples here, and here:

It’s been astounding, but as indie filmmakers, as studio filmmakers, as any filmmakers we need to know there’s a financial model that works. If we’re unable to pay back our investors....we can’t go on. If the exposure equates to dollars, we’re gold. If these users only see it on bit torrent and don’t pay, we’re not.” She then went on to say that it’s clear that the [large] number of people illegally downloading is not balancing out with the few that have gone on to donate to them or buy the film outright. So it’s helping them in one way (exposure) and not helping them in another (money). Sadly, it’s in the way that really matters where people who want something for free are not doing filmmakers any favors.

The obvious impact of all this is that some people are simply not going to bother to create, or finance, an independent movie, or a non-blockbuster release, simply because when you throw rampant piracy into the equation, there's just too much risk involved. Instead we get more of the formula movies, the big hyped-up craptacular lowest-common-denominator summer blockbusters, because they're generally guaranteed to make decent returns even with massive piracy factored in. Especially if said movie is then released on DVD or Blu-ray in a fancy package with a model of Batman's head or some other toy that mr. pirate movie fan must absolutely own and can't just download.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I don't believe that I posted a "slaughter" of the Fox Archive program. The program, which has copied much of the Warner design, had a problematic opening run. Pan and scan is not fruitful to the modern home marketplace. But some of their releases, like the original run of WB titles, even though coming from old masters, are acceptable. Warner has instituted a program of re-mastering, as well as Blu-ray, and now steaming.

But since Fox owns the property then I guess it's their right to release bad material and P&S. We fans still have the right to complain, which is where I come in regards to them not releasing or doing anything with what's in their vault.As to the illegal copies of the Hitchcock films, they've not been around for 35 years. A dozen is more like it. But that's quite enough. By virtue of this thread, I'm attempting to educate the distributors, and change things. Unfortunately, the weeks of inactivity shut all attempts down, and things need to be reset in place.
This here is a bit shocking to me because I remember watching them around 1988-1990 and they were public domain releases from Goodtimes. Perhaps these were licensed at the time???? I owned these titles on VHS so it seems they've been around longer than 1998.
Your complaints toward unavailability of select titles pales in comparison to the hundreds already available from WB, as well as a continually growing list from Fox and other studios.

I've watched over 9500 titles the past six years so I'm pretty good at knocking off titles as they become available. I personally don't see anything growing outside the work of Warner as we're getting nothing but re-releases. Again, people are asking for Tracy not some forgotten "C" picture that played one theater in Iowa before going away.As to Disorderly, why not offer to fund an SD master for Fox. It just might get it to their archive collection for you. It's not a film that would return decent numbers. But I bet they'd give you a complimentary disc.

Simple answer. As much as I love movies I love my three-year-old much more so he would get any sort of money like that. Not some greedy studio who has the money and means to do it themselves but would rather destroy the prints like they did to their silent pictures just because they won't return decent numbers. RAH

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm not going to go back and "quote" the various posts from page 19 but I'm really just an evil person I guess. I'm really laughing my ass off at some of the "points" brought up from people on their soapboxes. Yeah, it's crime but I really hope our government is stopping terrorists, rapists and violent gang members instead of going after some pimple-faced dork watching IRON MAN 3 on his computer.

I will like to admit all my sins to perhaps one of these soapbox members crying about studios making $1.8 billion instead of $1.9 billion or the poor theater owner who has to raise his $1 box of candy from $5 to $6 to make some extra money because a couple dorks didn't come see THE LONE RANGER. Give me a break or cry me a river. I guess I should walk down to the police station because the other day I went and watched THE WAY WAY BACK and FRUITVALE STATION but snuck a Snickers bar in my pocket in case my sugar dropped during the double feature. I guess for taking my item in I should be giving a little jail sentence according to some here. I guess buying those Clara Bow titles two years ago I should be in the same jail cell as a rapist.

This soapbox I'm on or others are on aren't going to get anything done. I'm willing to bet these titles on Amazon will be there this time next year and this time five years from now. Face it, nobody cares and thank God for that. We've got bigger problems than this.

With that said, I'm going to break down and admit that just two weeks ago I learned of a woman I worked with who was selling copies of her DVD collection for $3. This is someone I've known for three years, a very Christian person who I ended up getting into a debate with because I did tell her she was basically stealing. She didn't agree. She's got four kids. A husband. The leader of her family. However, to those on the soapbox, if you will PM me I will give you her name, her address and the place that she works so you can actually do something and report her to the FBI or whoever else you want. The soapbox isn't getting anything done so if you really think action needs to be taken then I'm giving you someone to take down instead of this back and forth on a message board. PM me and you can do what you want with the information and get her arrested. If you need the phone number for the police in her area then I'll provide that as well.

 

[Gary16]

It's amazing to me how someone can condone criminal activity and post about it as though it's funny. I'm blocking further posts from this person.

 

[ahollis]

I'm not going to go back and "quote" the various posts from page 19 but I'm really just an evil person I guess. I'm really laughing my ass off at some of the "points" brought up from people on their soapboxes. Yeah, it's crime but I really hope our government is stopping terrorists, rapists and violent gang members instead of going after some pimple-faced dork watching IRON MAN 3 on his computer. I will like to admit all my sins to perhaps one of these soapbox members crying about studios making $1.8 billion instead of $1.9 billion or the poor theater owner who has to raise his $1 box of candy from $5 to $6 to make some extra money because a couple dorks didn't come see THE LONE RANGER. Give me a break or cry me a river. I guess I should walk down to the police station because the other day I went and watched THE WAY WAY BACK and FRUITVALE STATION but snuck a Snickers bar in my pocket in case my sugar dropped during the double feature. I guess for taking my item in I should be giving a little jail sentence according to some here. I guess buying those Clara Bow titles two years ago I should be in the same jail cell as a rapist.This soapbox I'm on or others are on aren't going to get anything done. I'm willing to bet these titles on Amazon will be there this time next year and this time five years from now. Face it, nobody cares and thank God for that. We've got bigger problems than this.With that said, I'm going to break down and admit that just two weeks ago I learned of a woman I worked with who was selling copies of her DVD collection for $3. This is someone I've known for three years, a very Christian person who I ended up getting into a debate with because I did tell her she was basically stealing. She didn't agree. She's got four kids. A husband. The leader of her family. However, to those on the soapbox, if you will PM me I will give you her name, her address and the place that she works so you can actually do something and report her to the FBI or whoever else you want. The soapbox isn't getting anything done so if you really think action needs to be taken then I'm giving you someone to take down instead of this back and forth on a message board. PM me and you can do what you want with the information and get her arrested. If you need the phone number for the police in her area then I'll provide that as well.

. I believe that that there are different agencies in law enforcement that go after terrorism than the ones that go after white collar. However it has been proved and reported that some major bootleg companies in foreign countries use those sales to fund their terrorism programs. So they can be connected. Google it. Second we are not talking about one pimple faced kid looking at THE LONE RANGER or IRON MAN 3 as an illegal download, there or thousands around the world. Third, Theatres are not TSA agents looking for candy, McDonalds, drinks or even popcorn brought into theatres. It's done all the time, but the theatre operators are still selling the ticket. That is what matters. As for your co-worker, your information is just hearsay to me so I don't put faith in it. You can turn her into the MPAA and receive a $5000 reward. It's up to you since you heard the information from her. I actually turned a theatre manager into his corporate operations for he was showing a burned copy of the X-Men pirated copy that made the rounds on the internet four years ago to employes and friends through the Theatres digital projector. He does not work that company anymore. This not a high road I take. I work in the industry and take this serious. There are a lot of consequences to a lot of people than just the big film companies.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'll add something that should be understood, simply and easily, even by those who support, piracy, IP theft, and via links, international terrorism.Two of my current projects involve films that are in drastic need of digital clean-up. I'm working with a gentleman in LA on one. He is able to process about ten seconds of material a day. That project may be completed this year.As this project is being funded, and tens of thousands of dollars have been incurred thus far, an older version of the film, to which my company owns copyright, shows up in bootleg form almost daily on eBay and YouTube. I spend probably an hour a week, time that I need to do other things, playing whack-a-mole with the idiots that have nothing better to do but post Intellectual Property owned by others.Several years ago, a company to which I had licensed one of the titles in question, took it upon themselves to take our old VHS master, freeze frame the area just before the copyright notice appears, and created a new DVD, which they placed into release.While the FBI may get involved where the stakes are high, and the press sizzles, they do not get involved in these types of situations.I was force to litigate, and after spending about $40,000 to protect our IP, came away with a settlement of 60k.Our ability to actually see a return, once our new HD master is competed toward a Blu-ray release, is extremely dependent upon the work not being available for free download, or $5.99 DVDs.This is not about studios, billion dollar Marvel deals or executives who go home at 5 and they're off the clock. This is money coming out of the coffers what enable restoration and preservation work to be performed and high quality Blu-rays to be released, along with the creation of DCPs.If we cannot control the thieves, we cannot save the films.Simple as that.RAH

 

[ROclockCK]

Several years ago, a company to which I had licensed one of the titles in question, took it upon themselves to take our old VHS master, freeze frame the area just before the copyright notice appears, and created a new DVD, which they placed into release.

While the FBI may get involved where the stakes are high, and the press sizzles, they do not get involved in these types of situations.

I was force to litigate, and after spending about $40,000 to protect our IP, came away with a settlement of 60k.

Our ability to actually see a return, once our new HD master is competed toward a Blu-ray release, is extremely dependent upon the work not being available for free download, or $5.99 DVDs.

This is not about studios, billion dollar Marvel deals or executives who go home at 5 and they're off the clock. This is money coming out of the coffers what enable restoration and preservation work to be performed and high quality Blu-rays to be released, along with the creation of DCPs.

If we cannot control the theives, we cannot save the films.

Simple as that.

As a movie history buff, HD enthusiast and home video collector, that's the biggest dog I have in this hunt. I want studio asset chiefs and preservationists to feel there is enough value in their tireless and often thankless efforts to justify the expen$e of rescuing, restoring, and remastering more of those rotting celluloid catalogues. And every crap-o-vision boot, burn, and YouTube stream just makes it that much harder for studio asset managers to convince their bean counters that preservation is not only a culturally responsible goal but can also turn a profit via DCP, HD video, and yet to be implemented revenue streams.

However, as long as that 'black hole' of lowest-common-denominator, garbage quality, pirated digital content continues to suck so much life out of the reclamation of cinema history, we're all losers...owners, preservationists, and fans alike. Studio bosses simply invest for better returns elsewhere, which underutilizes the preservationists, while we fans continue making do with too many indifferent legacy SD ports, nasty 'as-is' scans from surviving elements, or more often than not, nothing at all*.

* The 70mm roadshow era is my best example of what's upside down about the current status quo. These natively higher definition films should be a natural for both Blu-ray and 4k digital exhibition...but to date, where are they? Mere dribbles. Who wants to touch the expen$e of that work in the current climate wherein the best hope is a 2 week window of sell-through before the race-to-the-bottom retail discounting and nose-thumbing global piracy kicks-in, forever devaluing such work?

 

[MichaelEl]

Our ability to actually see a return, once our new HD master is competed toward a Blu-ray release, is extremely dependent upon the work not being available for free download, or $5.99 DVDs.

Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. On the one hand, the freeloaders who find an illegal copy of your work would almost certainly not otherwise purchase the Blu-Ray, and so their activities will have little or no effect on your actual profits. On the other hand, the vast majority of fans of the film will purchase a legitimate copy, since an illegal lower cost option will almost certainly be a poor quality downconversion of the Blu-Ray. I would argue in fact that the availability of a downloadable .avi file or cheap DVD downconversion will only serve to make more fans of the film aware that the Blu-Ray exists and thereby increase sales of your Blu-Ray. In any case, it's obvious that software piracy isn't likely to cut into your profits. The argument might have more validity if we were talking about a video game, but the people who have an interest in seeing old films are generally not teenagers; most are film collectors and are looking for something of value to add to their collections.

 

[Robert Harris]

Deleted

 

[Persianimmortal]

On the one hand, the freeloaders who find an illegal copy of your work would almost certainly not otherwise purchase the Blu-Ray, and so their activities will have little or no effect on your actual profits. On the other hand, the vast majority of fans of the film will purchase a legitimate copy, since an illegal lower cost option will almost certainly be a poor quality downconversion of the Blu-Ray. I would argue in fact that the availability of a downloadable .avi file or cheap DVD downconversion will only serve to make more fans of the film aware that the Blu-Ray exists and thereby increase sales of your Blu-Ray. In any case, it's obvious that software piracy isn't likely to cut into your profits. The argument might have more validity if we were talking about a video game, but the people who have an interest in seeing old films are generally not teenagers; most are film collectors and are looking for something of value to add to their collections.

Please post any evidence to back up this self-serving statement. This is a very popular myth that does the rounds, in video gaming as well. The "I wouldn't have bought it anyway"/"I couldn't afford to buy it"/"I was trying before considering buying" routine. Some proportion of piracy leads to lost sales, that is an unquestionable truth. It's nonsense to suggest that pirates would "almost certainly not otherwise purchase the Blu-ray" - it's nice to be certain when you're not the one facing the risk of losing thousands of dollars of your own money.

Evidence has been posted on the previous page showing that lots of pirated copies do not translate into lots of sales. Word of mouth quite often leads to more people pirating rather than buying something. If you can download something for free, or buy a cheap bootleg of it, chances are you're going to tell your friends, and other people online, how to do the same thing. Everyone loves to publicly talk about how they want to support creators directly, but in the privacy of their own home, with no-one to see what they're doing, most people simply resort to the quickest and cheapest way to obtain something - which piracy provides.

You also ignore the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, for some time now people have had the ability to find 1:1 (identical) pirated copies of virtually anything: lossless FLAC copies of music, full 8.7GB DVD rips, even full Blu-ray rips, as well as the very high quality 720p and 1080p encodes of movies with minimal quality loss, and all the associated extras like disc artwork, sleeve artwork etc. No skill required, just type the name of what you're looking for into the relevant search box and up pops dozens of search results, ready to be downloaded. In fact all you need is basic Googling skills and you're halfway there; aside from the links, there are plenty of tutorials teaching novices how to pirate. No technical knowledge required.

Why is it so difficult for people to face the simple fact that their individual acts of piracy, when multiplied by millions upon millions of people doing the same thing around the world, can not only have an impact, but a seriously distorting one, on the businesses which provide us with entertainment material? I contend that this is a difficult concept for many to grasp, simply because they have no incentive to grasp it. If you're getting what you want for free, then why bother trying to understand the other side of the story? Much easier to come up with excuses and blame the victims.

 

[schan1269]

The only time I've "pirated"(should add...version) is when I've exhausted all chance of obtaining the item I wanted legally. However...

I do not own a "pirated"(version) copy of anything...without also buying it however I could(even if it was used, I at least still have it).

Examples include some of Milla Jovovich's early work.
Brooke Shields' early work.
Katya Berger's early work.
A variation of Equus that was never sold here and is OOP in the rest of world.

I used to take classes at the Kinsey Institute at IU. I've seen TV/Movies from other countries that, well...it would never fly here in its original form.

Going with MJ above, I'm sure some of you know what I speak of. The "unedited" movie no longer exists. I have it, unedited, on VHS(an oops in the early release of the movie). Do I have it on DVD?

Sure do. But it is 1 of 4 total copies I have, with the other two being "edited".

 

[Persianimmortal]

Look, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've also pirated stuff in the past, stretching back to the 1980's when I use to copy games from my friends for my Commodore Amiga computer. I'd wager virtually everyone reading this has committed copyright infringement in one form or another, whether unintentionally or otherwise, at some point.

This really isn't an issue of painting individuals as pirates for the purpose of tarring and feathering them for life, at least not from my point of view. This is more about getting people to think about the impact of their actions on the future of the industry. The starting point for that is to do away with the self-serving justifications. The more these justifications spread and become falsely enshrined as fact (e.g. the popular blanket statement "piracy doesn't lead to lost sales/they wouldn't have bought it anyway"), the more all manner of piracy increases, to the detriment of first the producer, then ultimately the consumer.

I can give a very clear example of this actually occurring in video gaming. And despite the stereotypes, most video gamers are actually not pimply teenagers. The average age of a video gamer is 30, so were talking mainly about people who should be able to afford to buy games, and who are, nominally at least, full-grown adults. Basically, piracy has so ravaged PC gaming, that a once-thriving industry has now reached the point where certain games aren't even released on the PC platform, despite no technical impediments. As one senior industry analyst recently said quite bluntly, publishers have abandoned the PC platform due to piracy. Research I did several years ago showed that although there were just as many, if not more gaming-capable PCs in the world compared to all of the XBox 360 and PS3 consoles combined, the console versions of games, despite being technically inferior and priced higher than the PC versions, were selling literally 5-10 times as many copies - for the exact same game! Why? Because piracy on the PC is dead easy, while it is more difficult and risky to do on a console. Essentially, the freedom of the PC platform is steadily killing it for gaming due to abuse.

Yet all the while, and even to this day, PC gamers have refused to accept that piracy has had any negative, much less devastating, impact on their favorite hobby. Mention piracy to a gamer, and the same old justifications that we see in this thread are trotted out. It's the greedy corporations, I wouldn't have bought it anyway, they need to make the product exactly the way I want it, at a very low price, etc. etc. It can't possibly be my own actions that caused this.

As much as some people want to assume that this is a situation unique to video gaming, I believe it applies just as much to movies, or indeed any form of entertainment media. We're at a critical juncture. If piracy continues unabated, then instead of investing in high quality consumer products like Blu-ray and its eventual successor, studios will go with lower risk, lower cost, and ultimately lower quality, DRM-laden products, like streaming. It's already heading that way. When consumers indicate - via rampant piracy - that their primary concerns are cost and convenience, then studios respond accordingly. That's why it's crazy to see people on this forum of all places actually standing up for piracy, or simply ignoring its impact.

 

[ahollis]

Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. On the one hand, the freeloaders who find an illegal copy of your work would almost certainly not otherwise purchase the Blu-Ray, and so their activities will have little or no effect on your actual profits. On the other hand, the vast majority of fans of the film will purchase a legitimate copy, since an illegal lower cost option will almost certainly be a poor quality downconversion of the Blu-Ray. I would argue in fact that the availability of a downloadable .avi file or cheap DVD downconversion will only serve to make more fans of the film aware that the Blu-Ray exists and thereby increase sales of your Blu-Ray. In any case, it's obvious that software piracy isn't likely to cut into your profits. The argument might have more validity if we were talking about a video game, but the people who have an interest in seeing old films are generally not teenagers; most are film collectors and are looking for something of value to add to their collections.

You are really looking at the world through rosé colored glasses. Why would "freeloaders" that go to the trouble to down an illegal copy for themselves not be interested on purchasing a copy if the download was not available. It just does not compute.

And are you sure about your last statement? Teenagers not interested. I just talked to a summer school high school film class of 27 teenage students Thursday night in Jackson MS that actually knew the film SAFE IN HELL and many other Pre-code films. They also are customers of WAC. They gave me a run for my money 1930's film history, especially the change to sound. I was elated to be challenged on some topics. I now have a different perspective on the younger film fans.

By the way not one title they discussed was from an illegal source.

 

[JoshZ]

Two of my current projects involve films that are in drastic need of digital clean-up. I'm working with a gentleman in LA on one. He is able to process about ten seconds of material a day. That project may be completed this year.

As this project is being funded, and tens of thousands of dollars have been incurred thus far, an older version of the film, to which my company owns copyright, shows up almost daily on eBay and YouTube. I spend probably an hour a week, time that I need to do other things, playing whack-a-mole with the idiots that have nothing better to do but post Intellectual Property owned by others.

RAH, two questions: How long has the movie in question been out of circulation, and would someone interested in seeing the movie have any way of knowing that a restoration effort was underway for a planned release?

 

[JoshZ]

Of course I support PD, and I've even advocated shortening the copyright length of time to hasten works entering the PD just above in this very thread.

As I explained in the thread, that isn't a realistic suggestion, because companies like Disney will never let go of copyrighted material that they're still actively using.

I was specifically responding to the idea of a "Use it or lose it" law. And I'll repeat the question with an addendum to help clarify it for you: where in the law, or even common sense, does it say that someone loses ownership rights if they choose not to turn a profit (or even release a work) for any given duration of time during their ownership?

My point is that it isn't currently in the law, but should be. I do believe that a "Use it or lose it" provision makes way more sense and is much more feasible than simply shortening copyright length.

I don't pirate movies. I don't support piracy. But in certain circumstances, concerning material that hasn't been distributed in decades and shows no sign of ever being distributed again, what other option does a person have?

Current copyright law is broken and needs to be fixed so that culturally significant IP doesn't just vanish to history because no one even knows who owns it anymore.

 

[ahollis]

So with a "use it or lose it" copyright law, how would it work for say PORGY AND BESS where the Gershwin estate still uses the IP for the stage but for years did not agree to use of it in the movie? The same with Irving Berlin for keeping ANNIE GET YOUR GUN out of release for years. And now with CABIN IN THE COTTON and the Ladd version of THE GREAT GATSBY being held up due to estate problems? Would those films fall in the definition or not since the books and plays they are based on ate still being published and preformed? I have been offered a bootleg of PORGY AND BESS many times but turned it down each time.

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH, two questions: How long has the movie in question been out of circulation, and would someone interested in seeing the movie have any way of knowing that a restoration effort was underway for a planned release?

both in circulation in one form or another, although both are being updated, ie. far higher quality elements, clean-up HD master, etc.As far as the public being aware, I'd rather that they were not.RAH

 

[JoshZ]

So with a "use it or lose it" copyright law, how would it work for say PORGY AND BESS where the Gershwin estate still uses the IP for the stage but for years did not agree to use of it in the movie? The same with Irving Berlin for keeping ANNIE GET YOUR GUN out of release for years. And now with CABIN IN THE COTTON and the Ladd version of THE GREAT GATSBY being held up due to estate problems? Would those films fall in the definition or not since the books and plays they are based on ate still being published and preformed?

That's something to be argued in court. Obviously, there will be exceptions and special circumstances, as there are with current copyright law, and as there would be with your proposal to shorten copyright length. I'm not going to pretend that a "Use it or lose it" provision would be a cure-all for all copyright woes, but it would be better than what we have now, and it's more feasible than shortening copyright length in a blanket fashion even for IP still in active use.

 

[Robert Harris]

One of the more major access / copyright problems involve "orphan" films. No viable corporate entity. No living person with a link to the film, but the copyright stands.

If changes were to be suggested to the law, and if the Congress is in a position to hear them, this might be one positive attribute of an updated law. The concept has been widely discussed.

RAH

 

[Douglas R]

One of the more major access / copyright problems involve "orphan" films. No viable corporate entity. No living person with a link to the film, but the copyright stands.

If changes were to be suggested to the law, and if the Congress is in a position to hear them, this might be one positive attribute of an updated law. The concept has been widely discussed.

RAH

At least action is being taken to deal with orphan works in Europe:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-743_en.htm?locale=en