Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
from the get-over-it dept
paperbag alerts us to the news that Peter Jackson is the latest filmmaker to go semi-ballistic over a film leaking to the internet. His new film, The Lovely Bones, apparently showed up online via a screener copy, leading Jackson to warn:He stated that although up until [now] he did not hold a grudge against file sharing, he is heavily disappointed that the leak even happened to begin with. He also stated that "those responsible for the leak will be brought to justice with the maximum prosecution of the law in mind" and that "anyone who is caught illegally downloading the film will also be prosecuted to the fullest", both statements which are sure to lose him a few fans.Jackson is definitely a director with a huge and loyal following. These are people will see his movies no matter what -- even if they happen to download them. It's a bit surprising that he would go to such an extreme, even to the point of claiming that those who are caught downloading the film will be prosecuted (though, we wonder how he's going to figure out who downloads the film). Being anti-fan is no way to build a business these days.
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: bittorrent, file sharing, leak, movies, peter jackson, the lovely bones
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
a tad on the righteous side...
Film houses should be adapting to the new theatre; the customers living room. There is absolutely no logical reason I shouldn't be able to watch a theatrical release the day it would hit theatres on my video on demand system at home other than the fact that it puts the middle man directly out of business. Come play in my territory Hollywood, the terms of this agreement aren't dictated anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does anyone here actually know him?
The movie industry has made more money than at any time in the whole of movie history. It's doing this by launching/repeating franchises etc - here's a list of top selling movies by decade
http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/WBOdecade.php?y=200
The originality is becoming thinner and thinner, the profits are fatter and fatter. This tendency started before the internet was capable of sharing movies.
If Peter made less money than he wanted to out of The Lovely Bones, then my guess is that the reasons for it are with the way the business/culture have evolved - and not because people who like the movie enough to share it, are sharing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Besides, anyone surprised that TLB would have leaked is a fool. It's a highly anticipated movie both for fans of Jackson's and fans of the best-selling novel. "Anticipated" mean there are people not willing to wait months for the official release date = demand for a screener (while it's out in the US tomorrow, some territories won't get it till March). Not to expect this is to be rather foolish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This has to be one of the arrogant statements I have ever read. Someone has taken his work and given it to the world without permission, totally disrespected him, and he is suppose to suddenly bend over and be "fan friendly" about it?
Holy crap Mike, that is the most idiotic stand possible. Were you even thinking when you wrote this piece?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
until
They could setup their OWN site, and sell NEW/OLD/Current/OLD movies at $3-5 each and make a FORTUNE. and NO DRM.
They could even setup their DISTRIBUTION system to theaters threw the SAME outlet/design.
NO MORE shipping, handling.
1 ORIGINAL and 1,000,000,000,000 copies from the site.
LOWEr overhead,
LOWER costs..
I KNOW WHY..
THEY are STUPID.
Look around HULU..look at whats happening.
MANY of those companies that WANTED them to setup, are NOT releasing the NEW videos to HULU. They are creating THEIR OWN SITES, and they ALL SUCK.
They dont see that setting up a SEVER FARM with access and HD space and BANDWIDTH, is a JOB from hell.
TRY to get 1,000,000 using your service to DL video and watch ONLINE and not LAG... ASK yahoo and GOOGLE about it.
AOl couldnt keep up, and finally DIED.
WE need 1 central location to get ONLINE content..2-3-4 for different TYPES of content..
Series
Specials
TV/CABLE/SAT
MOVIES
Its a PAIN in the %$@#%$ to go from SITE to SITE and see if a series has been updated..EVEN HULU sucks in sorting ALL the video.
If you figure that 1/2 the CABLE/SAT channels all have a site up and are BACKINGUP/SHOWING the shows on the net...WOW.. it wont be long BEFORE all the OLD stuff is there and TONS of NEW stuff...
BUT, where is it.
Look up WB/Cartoon network/and the other cartoon channels..there should be TONS of old cartoons online. THEY WONT POST THEM.
and then you wonder WHY people pirate.
YOU could make a FORTUNE converting VHS to DIGITAL and putting it on a PRIVATE network.
EVEn the OLD doctor WHO series has LOST over 300 episodes. they searched the world for copies. NONE.. A few PIRATED versions were found and COPIED for the BBC to use.
USE the NET, USE what is ALREADY there. TRYING the REMAKE the wheel is VERY hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
until
They could setup their OWN site, and sell NEW/OLD/Current/OLD movies at $3-5 each and make a FORTUNE. and NO DRM.
They could even setup their DISTRIBUTION system to theaters threw the SAME outlet/design.
NO MORE shipping, handling.
1 ORIGINAL and 1,000,000,000,000 copies from the site.
LOWEr overhead,
LOWER costs..
I KNOW WHY..
THEY are STUPID.
Look around HULU..look at whats happening.
MANY of those companies that WANTED them to setup, are NOT releasing the NEW videos to HULU. They are creating THEIR OWN SITES, and they ALL SUCK.
They dont see that setting up a SEVER FARM with access and HD space and BANDWIDTH, is a JOB from hell.
TRY to get 1,000,000 using your service to DL video and watch ONLINE and not LAG... ASK yahoo and GOOGLE about it.
AOl couldnt keep up, and finally DIED.
WE need 1 central location to get ONLINE content..2-3-4 for different TYPES of content..
Series
Specials
TV/CABLE/SAT
MOVIES
Its a PAIN in the %$@#%$ to go from SITE to SITE and see if a series has been updated..EVEN HULU sucks in sorting ALL the video.
If you figure that 1/2 the CABLE/SAT channels all have a site up and are BACKINGUP/SHOWING the shows on the net...WOW.. it wont be long BEFORE all the OLD stuff is there and TONS of NEW stuff...
BUT, where is it.
Look up WB/Cartoon network/and the other cartoon channels..there should be TONS of old cartoons online. THEY WONT POST THEM.
and then you wonder WHY people pirate.
YOU could make a FORTUNE converting VHS to DIGITAL and putting it on a PRIVATE network.
EVEn the OLD doctor WHO series has LOST over 300 episodes. they searched the world for copies. NONE.. A few PIRATED versions were found and COPIED for the BBC to use.
USE the NET, USE what is ALREADY there. TRYING the REMAKE the wheel is VERY hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trade Secrets
Before a movie has premiered it is still a trade secret. And if it leaks during that time it will most likely be much more damaging than ordinary copyright infringement. Because the creator hasn't had time to put all mechanisms for monetizing in place yet.
After a movie has premiered, and all mechanisms for monetizing should be in place, it is mostly a consequence of a bad business model if the creator cannot benefit from the enhanced marketing filesharing creates.
I might add that this is not an argument for the practice of different release windows. Trying to keep something a trade secret in one market while its already made public in another market or another format is a seriously flawed business model today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why don't you stop commenting on issues you are not capable of understanding?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well
If you kneejerk like this, you don't deserve my money. period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: a tad on the righteous side...
...but whatever, he made LotR."
Which was, ironically, a pompous righteous movie...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: until
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Normally I see nothing wrong with filesharing, but this is a case where the movie was published before the official release. Which probably means they accessed a storage device they shouldn't have had access to. That's both a violation of the studio's (real) property rights and of their privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1 Person A has position X.
2 Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3 Person B attacks position Y.
4 Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trade Secrets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I just heard about this movie last night at a group I go to, and everyone was very excited about the movie and praising the book.
Now I have no desire to see it. I don't even care enough to download it. That's what anti-fan gets you.
Making a statement like this, is like Peter Jackson making a statement on the Obama Health Care plan. I have no issue with him having an opinion, but it's likely his opinion will upset a segment of the country.
In this case, Peter Jackson has promised to sue people he isn't even sure downloaded the movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trade Secrets
The Lovely Bones had its premiere screening in London on the 24th November 2009, and has already been widely released in Australia and New Zealand. Hardly a trade secret now, even if that argument held true.
Your arguments still depend on a proven fallacy - that people who view the "pirated" copy won't see a legit release. Look at the Wolverine fiasco last year for how a pre-release copy does not necessarily mean lost revenue.
"it is mostly a consequence of a bad business model if the creator cannot benefit from the enhanced marketing filesharing creates."
It is also a consequence of a bad business model if withholding the product from a large cross-section of potential customers is necessary to make a profit (see: regional windowing, windowing between theatrical & DVD release, etc.).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: until
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you rant you lose
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He has the right to threaten if someone steals from him.
I find it odd that if someone stole something from me, and I threatened to press charges on anyone with stolen goods--that the community would be angry for me doing so. (Anti-fan).
If you're going to steal--okay. Just beware of the consequences that may come along with such actions.
However, some good solutions is to make the actual person who leaked the material to pay severely for their crimes should be more of a priority then the people that have their hands out for pirated content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bottom line
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nothing has been stolen. Jackson's film is still available to anyone who wants to see it. In some places, it's currently being withheld for legal viewing by the studios, but they have all the prints intact to show at as many cinemas as they wish.
By attacking the *downloaders*, Jackson is making an anti-fan statement. Most of the people downloading are *fans* who don't wish to wait a potential enforced 6 months (if they can't make it to a cinema showing the movie or it's not being released in their region for a while). It's less likely that casual movie-goers are bothering to download it than it is hardcore movie fans who want to check the movie out to see if it's worth paying theatrical prices for (as its gotten extremely mixed reviews).
As ever, this is not to justify "piracy". But, for as long as the "pirates" are more willing to satisfy fan demand than the studios, "piracy" will always exist. Jackson should be either reducing this demand or accepting it and building a business model around the fact that it exists. Not attacking the fans downloading the material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You know why? because no physical goods were misplaced or removed. Look it up in the lawbooks, you have copyright laws and laws regarding theft. Both types are in different law books, and have different punishments.
Yes, it's illegal, perhaps even immoral (though that remains to be seen) but it's not theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
before i figured i would see it in the theater.. now thanks to shills like you and his "DOWNLOAD AND DIE" attitude, i could give a big steamy pile of shit (kinda like almost every one of your posts, are you Peter Jackson?_) about him or the movie...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trade Secrets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I hope this clears things up for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If it is *given*, then it's not theft, (even by your twisted use of the word)is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bottom line
will be the day I put away me eye patch and me parrot, matey.
FTFY :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Actually, it is for the public to decide what is morally right or not. That's what morality is (and that's how laws are suppose to be made).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
While Jackson's statement may have been "anti-fan," I suspect his bigger outrage was over the scumbag who violated the screening agreement, and it is on that point that I would agree with Jackson and disagree with Mike. While Mike does not agree with the violations of the person breaking a screening agreement, neither did he appear particularly discomfited by the actions of the unethical person who violated a contract.
Sorry, Mike, but the ends do not justify the means.
As to identifying who downloaded a copy of the film and who uploaded a copy, it depends on whether the copy was watermarked. Individual copies used to be identified when they were provided on VHS because it was easy to do. Apparently it is more difficult and expensive to do on DVD. Yet, it is still done fairly often. I seriously doubt Jackson would actually go after someone who downloaded a copy of the film obtained through a violated agreement, but if the watermark exists, so does the possibility of finding this person, especially if they participate in a torrent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leaks - An Inside Job
Once content is created, it easily "escapes" and points to an inability of the content creators to really control distribution. So when it is leaked, its too late, too bad, get on with life. But my real point, why continue to blame the informal distribution system and try to stamp it out when internal security is responsibility to the content creators?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: until
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funny
I hate Hollywood I swear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed, which makes it a contract breach, not "stealing". Two very, very different concepts.
"While Jackson's statement may have been "anti-fan," I suspect his bigger outrage was over the scumbag who violated the screening agreement"
His words directly attacked "downloaders", who are the fans among others. As ever, the question is WHY did the copy get leaked? The reason is because the movie is much anticipated, being released at a relatively small number of screens for a major studio picture and has gotten very mixed reviews (making it important for a customer to know whether the movie is worth the potential $30+ they'll spend seeing it theatrically).
Again, that's the point. Whether you agree with the leak or not, you cannot deny that it's the studios' marketing tactics that are making the download desirable in the first place. As long as the demand exists, so will the "pirates". Best to deal with the fact that it exists, rather than hiding in a corner and hope those "pirates" will go away (as Sony did with Moon).
"if the watermark exists, so does the possibility of finding this person"
...and? People have been caught and prosecuted via watermarks before, but that didn't stop this copy getting out. If the person who leaked this copy is caught and prosecuted, it won't stop leaks in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I might be a hobby critic or journalist, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy to view at home too. :)
BTW..I am not a fan of Mr Jackson's work...and less of one after this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Who do you think is going to download this? It is not the people who don't want to see his movies. These are not people that are trying to hurt the guy financially. It is being downloaded by PEOPLE THAT CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE FILM.
These are his biggest fans. It sucks that the newest generation of people have no patience, but trying to cater to that impatience is now good business sense. These are the people most excited about the film. Telling them that they are criminals (while possibly true) is much more likely to alienate them than it is to suddenly make them better fans.
This kind of a situation has been handled with a softer touch by other film makers: Telling the fans that the version was not ready for release. Praising them for being loyal fans. Letting them know that the version in the theater will be much better and if they liked the downloaded one, the one they pay for will blow their minds.
We have seen study after study that suggest that the people that downloaded the movie are still pretty likely to go see it when it comes out. It may not be right that they downloaded it, but it is bad business sense to make likely customers dislike you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And, once again, the point is not that infringement should be legal, or moral, or that publishing a copy was in some way the right thing to do. The point is that it happened. It is going to happen - technology has made this far too easy to stop it now.
Particularly in cases where this has already happened, it is not good business sense to threaten the people that downloaded the film. Yes, they have done something you may not have wanted - and they have violated the law. The problem with his reaction is that it is a poor business move. Studies have shown that the people that downloaded the film are still pretty likely to go see it. These are pretty likely to be big fans of his. He may be within his rights to threaten the fans, but his behavior is not likely to get these people to go see the film.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: until
Plz expand summary to 140 characters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funny!
And he did produce LOTR....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lovely Bones
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: until
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Trade Secrets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Trade Secrets
If that is the case I would agree with you that this is not a case of violation of trade secrets. And totally a result of a flawed business model based on regional release windows.
"It is also a consequence of a bad business model if withholding the product from a large cross-section of potential customers is necessary to make a profit (see: regional windowing, windowing between theatrical & DVD release, etc.)."
Thanks for clarifying what I meant to say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Trade Secrets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade Secrets
...and, whose decision is that?
According to boxofficemojo.com, Wolverine was released in 4,102 US theaters, while The Lovely Bones is released in 2,400. They clearly have the option to release TLB in more screens, but have opted not to do so.
They can still "cash in", but they have to recognise a few facts. One of these is that TLB is difficult subject matter, and so people will want to preview it before spending the money. Another is the fact that a smaller screen count means that it's more difficult and more expensive for those living outside of major metropolitan areas to see it. A third is the very mixed reviews the movie has had, and that unlike Wolverine it's not a "must see on the big screen" kind of movie.
Either way, it's a fact that the studios' own releasing and marketing methods are creating demand for the "pirated" copy, and there's no evidence that the screener will lead to lost overall revenue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Terrible Movie
It is very hard to monetize a movie that sucks once people know it sucks. If you can hold back that truth until opening weekend, you can still make a fortune.
That is the business model that is currently failing. Leaked screeners make it very hard to lie to the general public. Hollywood actually has to make decent movies now, and that scares the crap out of them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Watermarking
I used to review DVDs for a major media site and there were several instances where we were provided with watermarked, serial numbered discs made by DeLuxe where some sort of interference pattern was added to the copy to make it identifiable. The problem is the watermarking borked the image quality by adding artifacts. (The first time I encountered one of these, I thought it was merely a horrible transfer and encode.) Since the most important aspect of the reviews to some readers was the A/V quality - who cared what we thought of the film itself? - it sort of defeated the purpose of doing early reviews of new releases. Most of the time, we'd eventually get a retail copy to screen and update the review, but a few remain incomplete because the studios were so paranoid that we'd hand out copies of their product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Terrible Movie
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Children have no patience. I wonder whether these same people who just "can't wait" open Christmas presents the moment they go under the tree. I bet if some of these same children could break into Stephen King's house to see his 30% completed manuscript because they just "can't wait" for the book to be published, they would.
In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i put this movie on my CRIA PENDING LIST
its the same excuse that the CRIA in Canada uses to not pay musicians and im using it now for everything
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For once, I agree with anti-Mike. Anti-fan? Even if these peopel are "fans" this is totally beyond the pale. So now other people get to decide whether your works are released,against your permission and as long as they are "fans" it's all good right? OR even better, because some new fans might get to see the film, and like it, so being against illegal release is now anti-fan?!! TOTAL BS. That was just a arrogant, and stupid statement on your part. It strains logic, credibility, and is literally laughable. Yes current copyright is messed up, but please don't do the entire cause of reform a disservice by further idiotic statements.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is this like people who didn't know they were pregnant?
You don't just stumble upon downloads like trippping over a hidden rock on a hiking trail. Woops...how did that get in my shoe?! People don't "happen" to download torrents. It's intentional. It is pre-release, and YES, in cases like this, is the equivalent of theft. Spare me...
Do you seriously expect people to take that statement with a straight face?! LOL....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see your bet and raise you the fact that 100% of those that would want to read a 30% completed book will buy the book when it comes out.
That, my friend, is the point. The **fans** are the ones that care about an early release. If I don't like Mr. King's writing, I won't want it at 30%, or 50%, or 100%.
While it is not illegal to alienate your fans, it is a very bad business decision.
Do you understand now?
In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.
Which is fine if you have some argument about an unfinished work. (See above for why that's silly) However, the movie is question is/was ready to be seen, and was only delayed to add "hype" or whatever the marketing world wants to call it. Making your *paying* customers wait for a product that is complete only gives them a reason to pirate. If a movie was released as soon as it was done, these fans would just go out and see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: until
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trade Secrets
A leaked copy will certainly lower your sales if your movie sucks. I think that is their *real* fear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Perhaps beside the point, but the phrase "even if they happen to download them" doesn't mean "even if they accidentally download them", it means "regardless on whether or not they download them".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So now other people get to decide whether your works are released,against your permission and as long as they are "fans" it's all good right?
He said he was going to go after downloaders. (aka fans) Note that the downloaders are not the person who uploaded.
Therefore, he is attacking his fans who did nothing but accept a free offer for what they wanted, that is, to see the movie asap. Getting angry at his fans for being eager to see the movie seems a bit anti-fan, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what you do is not so great that it is irreplacable..
(yes not even avatar, but i watched it at the cinema anyway..(and only because i saw dances with smurfs on southpark FIRST))
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OK. The theft thing is obviously something people will not agree on. However, IMHO, the big point everyone is missing is this: Are those "fans" really showing respect for Mr. Jackson, when he does NOT want those fans to watch this pre-release? At what point, regardless of whether they want to see his films or not, are these fans disrespecting Mr. Jackson's wishes? Perhaps they are not as bad as the person who uploaded the link, but should we have to split hairs ?
Why can't people just respect his wishes. A fan wants the best for the creator right? Or is it all about what the fan wants? That's the mentality many people have, and it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see your bet and raise you the fact that 100% of those that would want to read a 30% completed book will buy the book when it comes out.
Maybe they would. Maybe they would not. Regardless, they did something unethical and immoral because they could "not wait."
That, my friend, is the point. The **fans** are the ones that care about an early release. If I don't like Mr. King's writing, I won't want it at 30%, or 50%, or 100%.
While it is not illegal to alienate your fans, it is a very bad business decision.
Do you understand now?
Being a fan is lovely. Having Stephen King release a portion of a book or story, or even an entire chapter, as a teaser is fine. That is Mr. King's choice and decision. That certainly seems like a "pro-fan" thing to do. HOWEVER, the decision is Mr. King's, not the immoral and unethical jerk who violated his rights and privacy.
In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be.
Which is fine if you have some argument about an unfinished work. (See above for why that's silly) However, the movie is question is/was ready to be seen, and was only delayed to add "hype" or whatever the marketing world wants to call it. Making your *paying* customers wait for a product that is complete only gives them a reason to pirate. If a movie was released as soon as it was done, these fans would just go out and see it.
There are two separate issues here. Please do not mix the two.
The second issue, in my mind, is the piracy. I am on the fence about someone pirating a movie or a song. I personally do not do that, but I have yet to decide how wrong it is for someone else to do it. I am somewhat persuaded by Mike's arguments that with modern technology people need to rely less on copyright and more on alternative business models. But that is not the issue.
The first issue is whether someone violated trust when they either stole the copy (assuming the screener did not do the uploading) or whether the screener violated an obligation. I think several people have made this point and I think it is a valid point. The fan stuff is interesting, but unrelated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I wonder what Matt & Trey would do with copyright, if they thought to lampoon it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How are fans supposed to know? I guess they know now. So it's disrespectful after Jackson's statement but not before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It would be best for the creator for me to see the movie 3 times a day for a month, but that's not going to happen because it's *not* what's best for the creator that is important, it's what's best for both of us.
What's best for both of us is for me to see it when I want to see it and pay for it. Since we, the consumers, are not given that option, we default to a close second: See it when we want to see it and then go pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: until
SELECT anonymousCoward WHERE grammar_level
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: until
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WRONG. YOU choose the second option, and option which is neither desired, legal, or on the level. Who gave you the right or permission? Oh that's right, you just granted that right to yourself. I wasn't aware that the fans were now the ones that got to make such decisions, and legally as well ///SARCASM
That's the problem, you've put your desire for entertainment above the wishes of the creator. Your argument is this:
The film isn't out, I want to see it, so if there is a means to do so, I will, even if it is against the creators wishes, and possibly illegal, and I don't care. I'll pay later so it's all good...
Funny how this self-created permission and justification comes right when the technical ability to do so happens right? Your mentality is abhorant, and unfortunately, engrained in large populations of the youth of 21st century America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's disrespectful to want to view the work of someone you admire? How so?
Just because it is now a technical possibility through the use of torrents, to view leaked releases, doesn't make it an "option" for fans, as Mike and others seem (I've heard no rebuttal) to be arguing for.
I am making no moral argument here. I am saying that if it is available, it is factually speaking, an option for people to view it. The fact that people have viewed it proves this. I am not saying if that's a morally good thing or a morally bad thing. Frankly, I don't think it matters. It's happening.
It's basic common sense that a creator should have some control, especially PRIOR to any official release.
Should is a moral statement. But if you want to make it, sure. They should have control. But once they don't? Then what? That's all I'm concerned with. So it is available. Pretending otherwise is meaningless. So my concern is GIVEN that it's available, how should the creator respond.
And I would argue that Jackson's response was anti-fan.
Anti-fan is just BS. Should these people be sent to the gulag? NO. That said, they also shouldn't be treated like heros.
No one is treating them as heroes. Again, I am taking the position of recognizing that the content is out there. You can't go back. So given that, how should Jackson respond. And I would argue that blaming those who downloaded it, and threatening them with the law is incredibly anti-fan.
If you want to see a suggestion for a "pro fan" way to reply to such things, you can see what I suggested when Wolverine leaked:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/0316244351.shtml
Being a fan doesn't give you immunity from harming or offending the content creator. Just because you like someone's work, and are therefor a "fan" doesn't give you cart blanche to just download because you want it.
Again, no one said otherwise, so I do not know why you are reading so much into what I wrote. However, most of the people downloading it ARE fans, and Jackson's words are very much against them. I do not see how you can claim it is anything but anti-fan.
People seem to be arguing for some sort of moral cover, or pass because they are "fans".
No. Again, we made no moral argument at all. We just said that given that the content is available (indisputable) what is the best way to respond. And Jackson chose a method that is clearly anti-fan. I find that to be a bad business proposition, entirely separate of the moral questions, which we aren't even getting into.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, and then claiming that the creators concerns alone make him "anti-fan", is the hieght of arrogance, and wrong on all counts.
Again, you seem to falsely accuse us of "giving them the benefit of the doubt." I'm doing no such thing. I made no claim on the morals of what they did either way. I was focused on Jackson's actions throughout the whole post. I am sorry if you misread it, but please focus on what I said, not what you think I said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's disrespectful to want to view the work of someone you admire? How so?
To do so without permission..must I spell it out? Apparerntly so.
"is GIVEN that it's available, how should the creator respond.
And I would argue that Jackson's response was anti-fan.
Anti-fan is just BS. Should these people be sent to the gulag? NO. That said, they also shouldn't be treated like heros.
No one is treating them as heroes. Again, I am taking the position of recognizing that the content is out there. You can't go back. So given that, how should Jackson respond. And I would argue that blaming those who downloaded it, and threatening them with the law is incredibly anti-fan"
OK. Fair enough. You make an argument based soley on the technical aspect. You will not jump into a moral argument.
Now this is where I have a disagreement with you. This argument I will present is not moral, but purely technical.
You are wrong, even from a technical standpoint, by definiton. "Anti-fan" means his actions in this case make him "anti-fan" in general. That's a straw-man attack, a good one, but a strawman none the less. The majority of the people who download this may be fans (no hard evidence obviously is availaible, and understandably so), BUT the majority of Jackson fans are NOT downloaders. Get it. It's basic logic 101. Most downloaders = Fans Most fans do not = downloaders. The equivalent would be if the majority of the downloaders were members of the green party. Let's say he does lots of enviromental films. He says they should be prosecuted. Does that make him now anti-green party? Or just against those green party members that downloaded his films?
It may be a bad buisness decision, it may reflect poorly on Mr. Jackson, and it may impact his fans perception of him, but in no way, by definiton or otherwise is this "anti-fan".
Nice talking with you =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you suggesting that the movie was created so I could *not* watch it?
Take your argument to the next level, if you bought a DVD and it came with a sticker that said you were only allowed to watch it on Friday nights at 8pm, would you do as the sticker demands, or would you say "Screw it, the technology exists to watch it whenever I want, and I'll do just that."
Let's be honest here, friend. Jackson only cares because he feels he's losing money with piracy, not because the public saw it "too soon". If he wants to fight piracy, then compete with it: Give the fans what they want, when they want, and piracy won't be needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike at least seems to be saying this is a reality that needs to be recongized. You've taken it one step further and saying this is his responsibility to you, and if he doesn't meet your expectations well then you give yourself other options. Mike is just saying what is possible. You are trying to justify it. Big difference. It's within your choice, but I highly question your motives in doing so.
. HOW CAN HE GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT BEFORE IT'S READY (including the buisness angle HE IS CHOOSING TO PERSUE) TO BE RELEASED??!! Incredible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Where does this leave the public? Some in the public disagree with copyright, others agree with copyright . . . .
How about we reform copyright because as I see it, the whole issue is confusing as the space between this world and the next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Downloading = not illegal
So, did this change without my notice? I'm asking because I'm very careful to only download materials, and not upload them to anyone else.
If I understand correctly, this is why the RIAA/MPAA have only gone after those "sharing" the files, and not those that have simply downloaded copyrighted content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Stupid copyright infringers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The fact that people wanted to see the movie enough to torrent it shows that marketing had done their job, doesn't it?
Also, from a business point of view, it *is* his responsibility to meet my expectations, as a consumer, or he'll find my attention pointed elsewhere, won't he?
I'm not justifying anything. Piracy needs no justification to exist. Mike is saying that Jackson should have responded better to the leak, I'm saying he should have "leaked" it himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Downloading = not illegal
Black propaganda, all of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Mike, c'mon man. It IS disrespectful to illegally download the movie in this case. Peter Jackson is in large part the creator, and he has pretty clearly expressed how he wishes for his content to be consumed. To download the movie might not be "wrong", it might not be "immoral", and free distribution/promotion of the work might be in the best good for everyone, but it is still disrespectful to a content creator to outright disregard the wishes surrounding his/her art.
"I am not saying if that's a morally good thing or a morally bad thing. Frankly, I don't think it matters. It's happening."
Couldn't have said it any better myself. The fact is that a person CAN be a rabid fan of an artist and still disrespect his wishes. In fact, I would suggest being a fan makes such more likely. Jackson is within his rights to be offended if he chooses, but there are more profitable ways to tackle this, as you've shown in the past. The question is would you rather be rigid, feel affronted, AND make less money, or be loose, accomodating, and make MORE money? The latter seems like the way to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade Secrets
Sure, there's the 'remove demand, remove cause for supply' issue. the problem is, the only way to remove the demand is to remove the demand for what he's selling himself.
Still, it's mildly annoying to see someone who has, until now, been something of a national example of 'how to actually do things right and be successful and stuff' say silly things like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder if there's anyone here arguing the opposite. The point is, Jackson has 2 choices here - accept and understand that *some* people do this and act accordingly, or throw a tantrum and threaten to have them arrested. Criticism of him making the wrong choice does not absolve the ethical wrongs of those downloading or leaking the movie, but there's certainly better ways to react. Especially in the modern era, when such leaks are frankly inevitable for any major movie.
"In real life, sometimes you have to wait if it is to be everything you expected it to be."
To play devil's advocate, people have spent decades doing exactly that and have been ripped off time and time again. Want to see 3 movies this week, but can only afford one? Trailers and reviews are often misleading, so some people find a preview the best way to find out. Again, I don't condone this, but it's definitely understandable, especially in non-US territories often forced to wait months or even years for certain releases.
"The first issue is whether someone violated trust when they either stole the copy (assuming the screener did not do the uploading) or whether the screener violated an obligation."
Neither of which justifies Jackson's threats against downloaders.
"The fan stuff is interesting, but unrelated."
Nope, it's the entire point. If Jackson had no fans, very few people would be interested in this release, and thus no downloads. I notice we're not discussing the available downloads of the UK production Fish Tank, another new movie this week released to just 2 theaters. Why is that? Because Peter Jackson has significantly more fans than Andrea Arnold.
The fans cannot wait, and yet there's no evidence that their downloading affects the movie's success in any way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Terrible Movie
Some jackasses didn't even like Pan's Labyrinth or Let The Right One In (two of the most perfect movies of the last decade IMHO), so I always take reviews with a pinch of salt. Are the poor reviews due to people not "getting" the material (it's resolutely not mainstream from what I understand), a backlash against Jackson's success or because the movie is bad? The best way to find out without blowing more (or close to the) money than the DVD would cost is, sadly, to download it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's also amazingly foolish for an experienced director not to expect this (AND producer, lest we forget - he is supposedly a veteran of the business side of movies from the day he self-produced Bad Taste onwards).
The fact is that if you release a piece of art in the modern age, be it movies, TV, music or whatever, it can potentially be "misused" or used against the creator's wishes. Led Zep don't want their albums available digitally, but they are - legally ripped if not pirated. Rowling doesn't want eBooks of her novels, but they're out there. The Weinsteins still don't want to allow us in Europe to buy an uncut version of Grindhouse with the fake trailers intact, but I have it.
Any artist has to accept this. Jackson utilises technology to bring to life movies that would not have been possible 20 years ago. He has to come to terms with the new distribution methods that come with it, and his fans will take it into their own hands if the studios don't. Threatening to sue those same people won't change this fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Depends... I'd call myself a fan and what I want is for him to get to work on another splatter comedy like Braindead (a.k.a. Dead Alive). Which he said he'd love to do in the commentary for The Frighteners a few years back. I don't really want to see a TinTin movie, but that's one of the things he's been working on.
If he thinks the TinTin movie's the thing he wants more, then our opinions differ but I'd still call myself a fan. Ditto when the marketing technique for TLB leaves me with downloading as the best option to see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What happens?
Tragedy of the commons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
One of the things that marketing drones tend to forget is that hype is universal. If a movie is being marketed in the US, Europeans will be exposed to the advertising. Asians will see the trailers. Brazilians will see the posters and the interviews. Believe me, there's nothing worse for a movie fan than seeing a trailer for a great new film that's out in the US tomorrow and finding out that it's not released in your country for 6 months. If people want to pirate in the meantime, the advertising still did its job...
Earlier tonight, I saw the first episode of the new season of CSI, just being premiered in the UK. It ended on a cliffhanger, making me want to watch the next episode. However, it's not showing till next week. The episode is freely available on the internet as it premiered in the US months ago.
If I decided to download the entire season right now, it just shows that the cliffhanger did its job. The network failed by forcing me to wait a week for material already available. Should I do this? No, but many will... A better business plan is needed than freaking out and trying to sue people for getting what the marketing has made them want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: What happens?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok. I can see that argument, but let me ask you: is it disrespectful to not like his movie?
I would imagine that his wishes would be for you to enjoy it. And yet if you don't, are you disrespecting him? Just because you disagree with his "wishes" I don't believe it's disrespectful.
I wish that you would have agreed with me 100% on my comment, but you didn't (not really, it's fun when you disagree, but making a point here). I don't think you're being disrespectful when you disagree with me, even if it goes against my "wishes" as the creator of this site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I guess I just don't see it as being disrespectful. Fans have their own desires, and I think it's a bit presumptuous to think that the content creator's desires must define how people enjoy (or not) their work. As I asked DH in my comment, if someone doesn't like his movie (going against Jackson's wishes that they would) is that disrespectful?
Get it. It's basic logic 101. Most downloaders = Fans Most fans do not = downloaders. The equivalent would be if the majority of the downloaders were members of the green party. Let's say he does lots of enviromental films. He says they should be prosecuted. Does that make him now anti-green party? Or just against those green party members that downloaded his films?
Really? So the only way to be anti-fan is if you are anti-all-fans? I guess we have a different definition of what being anti-fan means.
NO creator is anti-all fans. To me, your definition of anti-fan is useless because it encompasses no one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm curious how he can tell one from the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Maximum prosecution under the law"? Ooh, ooh, anything but that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter Jackson is good?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since I've no desire to consume Peter's content in the way he wishes, I'll show him the respect he deserves. If others did the same, we would find ourselves agreeing pretty quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another classic logic 101 concept is definitions. People
can't really have meaningful discussions unless they are working of the same definition of something, or at least know the other party's definition. So on to "anti-fan".
It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but when someone uses the term anti-something, to me that means "against the majority". That is the impression I got from the way you were wording it. Now that you've clarified, then yes, he is according to your defintion, anti-fan. This is a very small subset of fans however, and I disagree with what those "fans" are doing. So I have no problem with him trying to control at least in part his buisness model. I never said the content creator is the sole party of interest, just the main one. Without the creator there would be no creation...which sounds cosmology, so I'll stop now. =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, you know I respect the hell out of you and what you write here....but that is an awful, horrible, downright goofy analogy. One is a concrete preference by the artist as to how he wants his art distributed. The other is completely a matter of opinion, opinion which is intrinsic to consuming the art to begin with. The two aren't even remotely the same....which I kind of think you already know.
Exact same thing goes with your wishing I'd 100% agree with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: until
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bottom line
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This preview is yet unrated...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dammit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My money is on the latter group, and then I'll add to the bet, that a lot of those initial downloaders (the fans) would also go to the cinema to watch it on the big screen.
Sure, Jackson may not like it that the movie is out on torrent sites, and of course the initial uploader committed a felony, but that does not negate the reality that the movie is now on torrent sites.
It's the uploaders the Jackson should focus his anger on, they are the providers of the illegally acquired material, and not on the sites the stuff got uploaded to nor on the people who downloaded it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]