Michael Moore Embraces Free Distribution Of Latest Movie
from the and-another-one dept
No matter what you think of controversial film maker Michael Moore (and I'll admit that I'm not a fan -- I think he's entertaining, but plays way too loose with the facts, even on issues where I might agree with him), over the years this been this odd compulsion by pro-copyright folks to pigeonhole Moore as being against anyone sharing his films online -- despite the fact he's clearly stated he has no problem with people file sharing his movies if it means more people see them. Yet, as we've pointed out, others have claimed that Moore's worst "nightmare" came true when one of his movies was leaked online, despite the fact that the leak helped get it more attention (just as Moore wanted) making the movie quite profitable. Then there was the "legal group" that used one of Moore's films as an example of filmmakers hurt by file sharing -- again ignoring Moore's stated appreciation of fans sharing his movies.Well, now he's making his stance even clearer. He's releasing his latest movie for free online, though, oddly it will only be officially available that way for three weeks (though, I'm sure by then it will be widely available in unauthorized forms as well). As of right now, it's a little unclear if the movie will be available for actual download or just streaming, though the website for the movie itself, called Slacker Uprising says that it will be a download. I think he's being a bit disingenuous in claiming that he's not planning to profit from the release, as he's also offering a DVD for sale, which will likely do quite well. Either way, perhaps now folks will stop using the leaks of his movies as evidence that he's against free distribution of his movies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: distribution, free, michael moore, movies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He recognized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is just desperate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He is just desperate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He is just desperate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He is just desperate
and I'm sure the 27 serious adults left do not use that kind of argument amongst themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael moore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: michael moore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: michael moore
For example, I'm not a fan of Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails(that's actually stating it lightly) BUT I respect him for his ability to embrace new technology and shun the music industry's dogma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: michael moore
Heh. All we do is editorialize. This is an opinion and analysis site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He'd have to give it away for free... nobody wants to buy it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Healthcare is a hard sell politically because everyone eventually needs it, hate it when they are faced with it, but most of their lives they don't think about it at all.
When a critical system is infrequently used, it is hard to get people all worked up about fixing it. Repairing a road or fighting a war can get far more political sway mainly because they are immediate and/or giving daily reminders of the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are kidding right? I work at a medical billing office that employs about 600 people that do billing just for ER Doctor's and I can tell you for a fact that it if a VERY FREQUENTLY used system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you work at a hub in a system that is infrequently used by millions of people doesn't prove anything. Your hub may be extremely busy, but that doesn't mean that it is something the average person deals with frequently.
To the average person, what is more urgent in their eyes is the pothole in the middle of their street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for the fact that it is NOT an infrequently used system. If you are talking about one, singular individual than, yes. But you are talking about the health care system, not a single person. If the system is used by millions daily, that is not infrequent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whereas the pothole, they run over that each and every day at least twice.
To get that single person to concentrate on an issue that doesn't directly affect them is a Very Difficult Problem.
It is trivial to sell them on fixing the pothole.
My statement is not about whether healthcare is important (it IS), but that to the average individual it isn't urgent (it ISN'T).
So as a politician, which fight do you take such that you wind up in power? This is the reality of politics, it has nothing to do with the reality of healthcare other than to state that it is a tough political fight.
Do you disagree that healthcare is a tough political fight?
Do you disagree that the average voting person doesn't interact with the healthcare system very frequently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Completely factual reporting is nearly impossible to find - that's why multiple newspapers provide nearly identical stories - each has a different perspective that makes them appeal to tailored audiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Moore Movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Michael Moore Movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Moore Movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I guess I used to be "elitist", but now my label has been changed to "Angry Left". I kinda like angry left, more action-oriented, full of adventure.
As to the Blockbuster guy's comment, in my, very, patriotic community, SICKO was one of most frequently rented Netflix offerings. Frankly, it was a pretty hilarious flick, especially the segment on boating the 9/11 injured to CUBA for medical treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cuba's Healthcare
So you enjoy when 9/11 'injured' were lied to to get them into the film? You enjoy when Moore shows you one of the top / exclusive hospitals while trying to pass it off as an average hospital?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
Yep I got that clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
Once you decide to use another means to ration a scarce commodity, you're at risk of unfair distribution of that commodity.
AJ
(boycottmcdonalds dot com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
I hate to point this out, but using money to ration healthcare is obviously the most unfair way of all? What in the world does how much money someone has, have to do with thier need for treatment . . . nothing, its completely arbitrary (they are not related in any way).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
If it were 'free' as you suggest and people can get any medical care at any time, who pays for it? Should anyone at any time be allowed to consume scarce resources without consequence? If so, do we stop producing products and services in this country so we can provide enough health care to meet the unlimited demand for free healthcare? People are going to overuse and undervalue what is free. You can't rely on people to forego free treatment so they can preserve its availability for others. They just aren't that nice. will you give up your place in line for your knee surgery so someone can have cancer treated?
Using 'emotion' to distribute a scarce commodity such as health care is what is breaking the healthcare system. Of the millions that don't have healthcare insurance, something like 50% of them make more than $70,000 per year. They CHOOSE not to spend their money on insurance so they can purchase other things in life. And the biggest reason health care is so expensive is medicare which only pays 30 cents on the dollar of the cost of proving treatment. So, those who have are again paying for those who don't.
I'd much rather have a society where we honor and respect free choice than one where we confiscate from those who produce to give to those who don't. Sorry. If you want the free health care, go line up in Canada. There's is so much better, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
But you’re the one who said to use anything OTHER THEN MONEY was unfair? So now at least you admit that rationing based on one’s ability to pay is not FAIR either.
“Once you institute that plan, you now have a bureaucracy determining who does and who doesn't deserve healthcare. Do you really want those people who ran the Katrina relief deciding if you deserve to see your doctor today?”
You already have such a bureaucracy in American healthcare today. The only real difference is the insurance industry bureaucracy of today is profit motivated and run to the greatest benefit of a very small group of people (share holders). Where a government bureaucracy could ostensibly be run with no profit motive and for the benefit of all citizens. However, make no mistake there is still a gigantic bureaucracy in near total control of your care either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
But at least you have choices. Under the government 'bureaucracy' (think FEMA, Corps of Engineers, Education Dept), you have NO choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
But at least you have choices. Under the government 'bureaucracy' (think FEMA, Corps of Engineers, Education Dept), you have NO choice.
"
You would have the same or MORE choice with a greater socialization of care in the united states then you have now. Much like European countries, you are still free to purchase insurance, or not have insurence at all and pay out of your pocket. The only real difference is it shifts the major initial payor costs from Employers (who pay for the majority of healthcare now and who also say they can no longer compete in a global market becuase if its expense), to the Government.
Scare tactics aside, the healthcare industry in the United States is FAILING, seriously so. If you doubt that, I would urge you to talk to someone in a position of monitary responsibility in that field. The quality of care in the United States continues to drop (among the top in infant mortality and the top industrialized nation on earth in preventable deaths) and the costs contiue to increase (we already pay CONSIDERABLY more then anyone else on earth for healthcare yet we have among the shortest lifespans of any industrialized people?). The system as it is in the United States simply doesnt work very well. It will be drastically changed very soon simply out of necessity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cuba's Healthcare
Now, to the core of your comments:
No socialist movement has ever provided a better society for its lower members than our free-market system
This is such bs I have to ask: do you actually believe this yourself? If so, what the hell do you base that ridiculous notion on? Something you read? Something a (ideological) friend told you?
Because if the rest of the world agrees on one thing, it certainly is that your American free-market (and lobby and whatever else this glorious free-market system cultivates) system does not provide the best society for its lower members. Go visit The Netherlands, Belgium, France, any of the Scandanavian countries,... and see check out just how much worse [sarcastic] those "socialist movements" have made those countries when it comes to not only health care, but also unimportant things, like education, social security, etc...
Also, your Canada example is ridiculous. First off, do you always believe anything any politician says at face value? or only when it suits you?
The important health services get pushed aside so every person can use this service for small, relatively unimportant procedures.
it's always great when somebody, without any external help or goating, exposes their ignorance and bullshit, thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I guess I used to be "elitist", but now my label has been changed to "Angry Left". I kinda like angry left, more action-oriented, full of adventure.
As to the Blockbuster guy's comment, in my, very, patriotic community, SICKO was one of most frequently rented Netflix offerings. Frankly, it was a pretty hilarious flick, especially the segment on boating the 9/11 injured to CUBA for medical treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Financing Moore's next project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's kind of funny, but when you really fact check Michael Moore's movies, you'll find a lot more truth than you heard in any of the speeches from the Republican Convention this week.
But did I mention that McCain is a POW? And that Michael Moore is fat?
Bowling for Columbine was an extremely perceptive view of the US gun nut culture. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a very clear depiction of the Bush Administration and their use of the 9/11 attacks to gain political power and decimate the Constitution. Anybody who's been sick in the last 10 years can tell you that Sicko was right on the money.
So, you don't like that Moore ambushed Charleton Heston? It made you squirm when Moore put some tough questions to GOP senators? Do you know why nobody ever fact checks the loony right-wing documentaries like "Expelled" or "Passion of the Christ"? Three guesses.
One fact that's easy to check: Michael Moore has left several nice imprints of his big-ass sneakers on the backside of the GOP corporate shills, and he'll keep on doing it. He's the 21st century version of Tom Paine, who quite nicely exposed the ugliness and moral bankruptcy of King George, using pamphlets and essays that were also accused of being "imprecise".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Passion of the Christ and Expelled
Moore is a liar and a hypocrite. He does not care who he uses, or what lies he tells about them. Again, so is Ben Stein, but the article above is not about him.
Read this, from someone who was featured by Moore in Sicko.
http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/jim_kenefick_and_moorewatch_as_presented_by_mic hael_moore_in_sicko/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A risky business move? Potentially. But as this site has stated many times before, there are many different ways to capitalize on free content. It looks like Michael Moore is trying one or more of those ways.
The thing you have to ask yourself is what type of payoff Moore is after. I don't believe that his motive is financially driven. I suspect he is trying to get his message out to the masses, and leveraging free distribution of content will get him that payoff.
If people like the movie enough, they likely will want to watch it in a better format (buy the DVD) and/or want extras (booklets with the DVD, t-shirts, movie transcripts, posters, etc...). On top of that, if the movie gets good reviews then people will flock to THEATRES in order to pay for the Theatre Experience.
There are lots of ways he can "cash in" from giving his content away for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Pope Ratzo
Bowling is full of lies and distortions, his later works are worse as he became even less concerned with reality as his ego grew.
It always amazes me when people who give every indication of being rational suddenly stand up for this fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...for what its worth...
AJ
(boycottmcdonalds dot com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh sure. This makes total sense...
This guy has long been exposed for the lying scumbag that most of knew he was to begin with.
Whatever.
Let him go ahead and do this, because after all, who really gives a s*** about this imbecilic dolt and his lie filled movies anyway, other than his core group of whiny, Anti-America/Anti-American, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, uber liberals from the ultra-left wing scisim of the Democrat Party, who's collective stupidty is surpassed ONLY by their incredible and mind numbing intellectual dishonesty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moore's Movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeyeyye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]