Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Matthew
the technology of distribution doesn't impact on the creative urges of the creators. It doesn't change their desire to produce things for consumption by others. It changes how the consumers access the work, not the work itself.
the technology of distribution impacts in so far as if the creators are not able to feed and clothe their children because people are stealing their work, they simply will not make it.
If it was artists supporting, en masse and identifiably, s92A, I might be of a mind to view things differently, but when the artists do not support something that the distributors do it says to me that it is the distributors fighting for their very existence, not for any kind of protection of the creators.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Filmmakers are overwhelming against piracy and concerned about the impact on their livelihoods. I can see why other artists who have less production costs may feel otherwise. But it does rather get on my wick to see suggestions that professional filmmakers are being placed in the 'pro internet freedom' camp, without any real indication that's the case.
Finally, we are not just talking about a new form of distribution, we are talking about PIRACY. The anti-piracy measures are not about cutting off the new form of distribution altogether. Indeed, many people in the film business see the advantage of the new distribution medium, which is exactly why the writers strike happened.
The attempts of the studios and ISPs to retain control the new distribution methods are more under the problem of 'net neutrality', which is where the filmmakers are actually fighting, and where I wish the debate was more about here. But somehow we are caught up in defending the pirates, rather than looking at how we can make sure independent distributors (ie artists) can actually gain a foothold in the new medium.
Which depresses me somewhat.
-
@81stColumn, cheers for the links I'll take a good look through when I get the time.
@Craig, yes, you're right, the notion of independents is rather an odd one, as the majors have brought up most of the supposed 'indie' studios anyway, and yeah, for the most part it's a marketing strategy as much as anything. Never the less, there are a lot of funding bodies 'independent' of the studios that are reporting that they are suffering because of piracy.
It's all good and well to say 'adapt or die' to the freemarket system, but I don't actually understand how theft is part of the market. Where do the notions of supply/demand/competition come into the situation if someone is out there simply giving the good/service away for free? Could you not as easily say that the attempts to stop pirates via political measure an attempt to adapt anyway? Personally, I still don't understand why anyone would suggest that behavior on the internet is somehow free of the moral and ethical considerations we would have in the real world. Isn't that sort of the idea of Public Address? That we try to behave in a way that we might if we were talking face to face in a cafe, avoiding the descent into idiocy that are things like Kiwiblog?
Anyway, artists have been making attempts to adapt to the new medium, but results have been mixed. Doctor Horrible is a great example of course, but that had the power of Jess Whedon's fan base behind it. Kate Modern is interesting, but again, the margins are so difficult for them that they rely so heavily on product placement, to the point where I think most people would feel uncomfortable about it. Another recent example was Tormented by Slingshot films. I talked to the producer of this and he described how they did their own distribution and marketing through the net, built a solid fanbase, got good reviews, and then found *weirdly* that no one was downloading the film. So they checked out the torrent and... surprise, surprise it was all, almost entirely going through the pirate channels.
Anyway, on the other subject of the politics of the ACTA, may I just say that while I agree in large part with the attempts to limit piracy, I'm no great fan of the MPAA nor the way the ACTA is being enacted. Some of you may recall the battles the various Guilds had in Australia recently against the MPAA and the FTA which would strip their local content quotas etc. Ours got stripped in similar circumstances much earlier, and with scarcely a peep from anyone. Generally, it would be to the public's great benefit to understand the way these political processes happen.
Of course that would require a lot more work from the media...
-
I'll also just add that they're well aware they were bloody lucky to have Slumdog as well. Next year they will probably not have the same kind of hit, and things are only going to get tougher...
-
Paul, good points. There certainly needs to be some adaptation, but I suspect we're going to get big problems if we have to rely too strongly on the cinema experience with new plasma TVs and the like coming in. DVD sales accounted for 2-3 times more than box office sales even back in 2006, so to abandon that will obviously be a major problem.
Certainly, we need to adapt. The current distribution models are poor over the internet - itunes for example, charges far too much considering the savings they are making on distribution. The problem is though that piracy is denting the margins so strongly that we're not seeing any real competition between the providers. The independent distributors can't get a foot hold, and so we're not seeing the sort of prices we ought to. Because of piracy the business model is simply unviable.
We also need to remember that the distributors actually end up paying for the productions costs, so when the distributors shut up shop, so do the film makers, particularly the independents. Pathe is a great example of this, I'd really miss Pathe if they shut up shop, so many wonderful films would never have seen the light of day without them. In the last couple of years they've halved in size, and lay that directly at the feet of the pirates. I had a brief chat with Cameron McCracken who produced or EPd a bunch of films such as the Queen, Brightstar, Slumdog Millionaire amongst many others and he's deeply concerned about the films they're not able to make because of the money they've lost through piracy.
But yes, they need to adapt to the new distribution model, and they're well aware of this. But the pirates are destroying the margins for internet services, so there's little they can really do except shut down a lot of what they can do, and ultimately fund less films.
-
Hi all,
I've just been in Greece for the last 2 weeks attending the World Conference of Screenwriters. Big Topic: Piracy. And we - as artists (as opposed to business people) - are deeply worried about it.
Reading the OP, it's hard not to feel that rhetoric is moving the debate away from practicality, and causing more damage than good.
Yes, the internet is a valuable resource that needs to be protected. But doesn't cinema deserve some kind of protection? Is there not some way of finding a reasonable situation where both sides can have their rights protected from both the big business corporate thieves as well as the bit-torrent thieves?
Firstly, let's be clear: the internet has cut down distribution costs. So films should be cheaper, perhaps 40% or so, perhaps less depending on marketing costs. But that's a far cry from being free.
The argument that it is the distributors that are only suffering is patently false. Independent cinema is suffering too. Severely. Artists are suffering.
Films are not cheap to make, even relatively small independent ones.
With piracy threatening the industry, it is much harder to attract money for riskier films. Hollywood Studios have closed down a lot of their independent arms and moved into the blockbusters. Independent cinema is dying rather than somehow being liberated.
Look, by all means, when we're entering into these agreements, we ought to be on the lookout for trojan horse provisions from big business looking to sure up their monopolys. The issue of ISPs being able to open up certain parts of the internet allowing faster streaming to some sites, and slowing others, is a real problem for example, and this is why the Writer's Guilds are fighting hard against this, and other forms of 'soft censorship', while still maintaining the need for us to be serious about how much piracy is seriously damaging one of the world's most important art forms.
So let's not pretend to ourselves we're just 'giving it to the man' here, or somehow helping independant artists by allowing piracy to go on.
Weirdly, this whole thing feels a bit like the smacking debate to me: just because a few (well, actually, a very large amount) of people are causing the problem, why should innocent people become criminals? And the accompanying rhetoric sometimes feels equally driven more by emotion, whcih threatens a reasonable outcome.
To me, the answer is the same: we need to have the ability to prosecute people who steal, combined with a sensible assurance that advantage won't be taken of the situation by those in a position of power.
But again, let's not pretend to ourselves that we're going to enter a golden age of artistic endeavor from being freed from the distributors. We're in trouble, and we need help.
So can we try to have less posts of 'black/white' 'good/evil', because it is no where near as simple as this. We need more practical sensible engagement with the problem, so we can actually move towards some sort of solution.
Cheers, sorry for the long post.
-
^^ Yup. And right on the money with your other posts too.
I think the commission was afraid that the creatives might just take the money and scurry off to do cool stuff. Their reports would read something like "Oh, yeah, money... right... yeah, we spent some getting some cool shots of sunsets off the Coromandel. Didn't end up using it but it looked fabulous!"
Right, because that's what professional level writers and directors would do...
-
'It's a cow'
(said in a very serious and thoughtful tone)
A gamillion points of win to whoever gets that one.
-
What doesn't seem to be being considered, is that there wasn't actually a terribly compelling reason for Winston to lie so blatantly about the Owen donation. If he'd come clean it would be a dead issue by now. But with this while 'no sign' fiasco it's completely blown up in his face.
Would have really have been naive for people in the govt. to actually believe Winston on this one with such an emphatic denial over an issue which isn't actually that serious?? Yes, HC could have gone rooting about asking for evidence and such forth, but can you imagine Winston's reaction to that? He would have brought down the government first.
Anyway, it occurs to me that Winston's vigerous denials may have been as much about making a show to HC, as much as anything.
-
BTW, I've received an email about how one newsroom weighed up the apparent tax promise and didn't write the story. I'll see if I can post it here.
Oh! Yes please!
-
You should try being sick on Sickness Benefit.
I feel your pain.
No pun intended obviously. I tried to think of something else but "I strongly sypathise with your plight" sounds silly.