Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films

from the good-filmmakers-are-not-afraid dept

Mon, Jun 14th 2010 8:49am — Mike Masnick

TorrentFreak asked independent film director Sam Bozzo to comment on his experiences having his two most recent films leaked to BitTorrent. The stories in both cases were different. The first film, Blue Gold: World Water Wars was released normally, and then leaked online. The second, his documentary Hackers Wanted was shelved after internal disputes -- but has now leaked to BitTorrent. Originally it was an old cut that was leaked, but now Bozzo's "directors' cut" has been leaked, and Bozzo seems fine with it. In fact, he claims that if you make a good film, having it leaked to BitTorrent can only help. It's only bad if your film isn't very good:

In a nutshell, I believe the only films that are hurt by torrent sharing are mediocre and bad films. In contrast, the good films of any genre only benefit from file-sharing. Due to this, I feel the current file-sharing trend is a catalyst for a true evolution in filmmaking...

That's quite a statement, since so many in the movie industry disagree. But Bozzo does a good job backing it up by explaining his own experiences. In fact, he admits when he first found out that Blue Gold was available online he was "enraged and terrified I would never make my money back," because of this. But he has since changed his mind, in part because he figured out how to embrace it:

I contacted the uploader of my film and asked she spread a message of support with the torrent, asking for donations if a viewer likes the film and explaining that was a self-financed endeavor. The result? I received many donations and emails of support from those who downloaded the film, but I furthermore believe that viewers spread the word of the film to their non-torrent-downloading friends and that DVD sales increased due to the leak. For me, the torrent leak was ultimately "free advertising", and I am the only truly independent documentary filmmaker I know making his money back this year.

He also responds to the usual complaint from filmmakers that even if unauthorized downloads might lead to more theater attendance, it must harm DVD sales, by highlighting, yet again, how obscurity is a much bigger "threat" than "piracy":

With "Blue Gold" already available on DVD in North America, UK, Japan, and Australia, the initial fear of a filmmaker is that each person who downloads a torrent would have instead paid to buy or rent a DVD if the torrent were not available. I feel this is false for many reasons. For an independent film like mine, most torrent users would have never heard of my film if not for the torrent. Unlike a large blockbuster film, I had no advertising money to spread the word of the film, so the torrent leak provided another outlet to hopefully create a viral campaign of word-of-mouth. The main point, though, is that this only worked because the film is a solid good film (for the target market at least), so word of mouth could only help the film.

The next obvious question is what about all those Blockbuster films that the MPAA and Hollywood like to pretend represent the pinnacle of movie making? He notes that it's probably wrong to worry about DVD sales, because if people are watching the movies on their computer, it's probably best to compare it to a situation like Netflix's streaming service, and again, notes the value of exposure over dollars:

In this case, I feel it is important to compare file sharing not with DVD-purchases or rental, but with streaming a film via Netflix's Watch Instantly and also with inviting friends over to watch a film in a group. In neither of these situations does a film make any money. Most are surprised to learn that Netflix pays only a fixed fee to the distributor for the number of years they may offer a film, regardless of whether that film is streamed once or a million times in that time period.

Yet anyone I know on Netflix's Watch Instantly platform, including me, is thrilled to be there. Why? The exposure. The more people who see the film, the more will likely love it and want to buy it for their collection. When you invite a group of friends to your house to watch a DVD, do you charge them? One person bought one DVD, and ten watch it free, but if the film is good, hopefully a few of them will buy a DVD for themselves, or at least spread positive word.

And from there he makes the key point:

Good filmmakers are not afraid to have their films seen, they fight to have them seen. They pay thousands of dollars for the "honor" of screening them for free at film festivals, so why not embrace screening them for free online with no "submission fee" required?

As for bad films? Well, he points out those are harmed by file sharing, because the negative word of mouth gets around much faster, leading people to avoid both the theatrical and DVD releases. But, he notes, for years, Hollywood has preyed on opening day box office numbers to define what is and what is not a good film, when the reality is those numbers are a factor of marketing and advertising:

Distributors of bad and mediocre films depend solely on a paying audience's misconception that they are paying to watch a good film, when they are not. Via mass marketing, trailers, posters, and paying high fees to star actors, distributors of bad films are betting all their money on one thing; getting as many people to pay to see the film the opening weekend in a theater before that disgruntled, unsatisfied audience tells all of their friends to avoid their bad film.

If you think logically just a second, it's ridiculous to judge a film's quality at all from the opening weekend, because nobody has seen the film yet to judge it! The opening weekend only demonstrates how much money was spent on advertising and the stars. That's it.

Believe it or not, all that is in just the first half of the article. Bozzo goes on to make a number of additional good points about why the legacy players hate BitTorrent -- not because it's "stealing" from them, but because it's upsetting their old way of tricking people into giving them money for bad movies. It's a great read. Someone should send it to Hurt Locker producer Nicolas Chartier, though I'm pretty sure I know how he'd respond...

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: file sharing, movies, sam bozzo

54 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

mdominguez2nd (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:20am

New Business Model?
This makes a lot of sense, potentially paving the way for a new business model for the film industry. As more entities are harnessing the use of technology - specifically the internet - the extent of the film industry's usage revolves around advertising/marketing. If a film were to be purposefully "leaked" by the makers, perhaps including brief breaks in the film for ads (similar to Hulu) and cutting out some scenes, it could garner more interest in the film thus possibly increasing theater/DVD sales in addition to other ad revenue.

However, the one problem with this (as mentioned in the article) is with respect to crappy movies - from what I can see - and I'm no expert in marketing/advertising - makers of the film purposefully push actors, scenes, music, etc in their trailers to attract people on opening day. We can see how good films last longer in theaters than the crappy ones - any purposeful "leak" of a crappy film would hurt the opening day sales.

Despite the negative aspect(s), I'd like to see how other film makers approach this idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: New Business Model?
  This makes a lot of sense, potentially paving the way for a new business model for the film industry.
  
  i think a better direction would be to make more smaller productions that are more targeted.
  
  bozzo said:
  The main point, though, is that this only worked because the film is a solid good film (for the target market at least), so word of mouth could only help the film.
  
  the problem with mass market films is that they get downloaded en mass. a smaller production would recover costs faster, and targeting could lead to more support in the form of merchandise sales and donations.
  
  i have seen two films ("the listening" and "the girl with the dragon tattoo") simply because they were mentioned on the nmap website. the listening was decent, and the girl with the dragon tattoo was excellent. i knew that if a film featured nmap that it would be a high tech thriller that would most likely appeal to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: New Business Model?
  any purposeful "leak" of a crappy film would hurt the opening day sales.
  
  This is bad?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mdominguez2nd (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re: New Business Model?
    Bad for the film makers and providing them with a reason for why "piracy" hurts the film industry.
    
    I'd rather DL a movie and find its crappy than spend 10$ for a ticket and be pissed off afterwards. Thus, bad for the crappy film since they don't get mine and other people's money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: New Business Model?
      It depends on how you look at it. If the maker is an artist, then more people seeing the crappy film is a good thing. If the maker is in it exclusively for the money, then it is a bad thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 12:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: New Business Model?
      However, it is actually good for the "movie industry", because then the "movie industry" will make better movies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 11:20am
  
  Re: New Business Model?
  I would tend to disagree with this, Before VHS/DVD, when I had to go to the movies I would listen to reviews of the movie and still go regardless of the review and more often than not the movies were good. Most reviewers were bad and still are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:25am

Bad films need an excuse
Movies that do poorly at the box office always need an excuse. The media and the general public generally don't question "piracy" so it is very convenient. If a movie gets terrible reviews and there is one pirated copy out there, then the blame will be affixed to piracy, and there is always a copy out there. Wolverine comes to mind as an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Mook, 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:27am

Reminds me of...
the most boring movie I ever saw in the theater, "Far and Away". It was so bad, I slept through parts of it that just couldn't hold my attention.

If file sharing had been around back then, maybe someone would have clued me in before I wasted my money.

Bet nobody's looking for a torrent of that piece of crap! But I did see it on the $5 shelf at Walmart a few weeks ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:28am

Exactly, Mike
if you saw the last email I forwarded you, I think you can imagine how he would reply quote astutely. I almost facepalmed when i read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:33am

I remember a while ago some studio head complained about the internet because people could get on there and trash a movie on the day it's released, and thus it was cutting down the time it took for word to get around that a movie was crap. So instead of a first good weekend, they only had Friday night. That's how these people think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 11:28am
  
  Re:
  Lesson for this particular bobble-head executive would be to stop making bad movies or get out of that business.
  If he knows the movies he produces are bad, why is he making them at all?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If he knows the movies he produces are bad, why is he making them at all?
    
    and if he doesn't know???
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 7:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    "If he knows the movies he produces are bad, why is he making them at all?"
    
    Actually sometimes bad movies are actually made that way. Have you seen any of the SCI channels made for TV movies? They are all horrible but fun to watch.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:43am

Smart!
That is one smart dude that understands marketing and that this is a good marketing strategy, but you have to know that you have a good solid film on your hands to be sure that you will make some money. I never go to see a movie on first day of release no matter what...I always wait to see what people are saying and check what critics are saying about the latest "blockbuster" (which most movies aren't), if I see nothing good then I won't watch it, if I find it online and like it then I recommend it to friends and we can go see it together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 9:53am

mostly it sounds like he doesnt have much to lose. basically, he could say that when you have a movie few people are willing to pay for, leaking it online works because you lose nothing, and potentially gain an audience. hopefully he doesnt go broke before he gets well known enough to charge for miniputt games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  Oh look, a film maker who doesn't view file sharing as pure evil and you go for derision. Shocking and yet typical.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    not at all troll. he has nothing to lose. so why complain about leaks? it isnt like anyone was lining up to see his stuff, he isnt risking tens of millions of investment and hundresds of millions of income against some pirates. his money was already lost, so no big deal. his story would be different if he was losing millions. he isnt. he would be lucky to lose hundreds.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 10:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: $$$
      So, the amount of money invested determines whether or not the person risking said money has a right to be upset about piracy?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: $$$
        "So, the amount of money invested determines whether or not the person risking said money has a right to be upset about piracy?" - not at all. the question is risk. if the guy has already lost the money and risks nothing, why would he care? the upside of piracy for him is bigger than the downside. his position is not at all like a bigger studio that put a whack of cash on the line. their risks are higher. they are less likely to be happy about piracy because they can see their market disappearing. this guy has no market, so he isnt losing anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $$$
        No risk and no reward.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 11:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're calling me a troll? How droll.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 11:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, indeed, if some movie company decides to shelve the movie you've put your heart and soul in it, without the ability to recuperate your money (because it was never really released), you could be glad that someone enjoys the movie.
      But mr Bozzo's previous film was released on DVD, and was pirated heavily. And yes initially he was scared it would eat into his revenue... but he found out that it didn't matter.
      So, your derision doesn't even hold true.
      
      There are numerous examples of even blockbuster movies that actually had a great opening weekend, despite this rampant internet plundering of the poor rich execs.
      
      A particularly good example would be Wolverine. Which got leaked on the internet, got trashed there for the awful special effects (yes, I know, because it was a rough edit, not the finalized product), and yet it had a better Box Office opening than similar movies.
      
      So what bad effect did filesharing have on that multi-million dollar craphouse of a movie?
      
      Oh wait, you don't like facts, you prefer truthiness... your gut feeling tells you "oh because people are "stealing" my works, I am losing money.", despite that there is no proof to be found that corroborates that gut feeling. And maybe, just maybe, you should make better movies... then it won't eat into your revenue, who knows, you might even gain fans for life, who'll even buy your crap products, just because they like the good stuff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        that is a total strawman. there is no way to know what would have happened without file sharing. there is no indication that the file sharing did anything positive for the movie (except perhaps get the name out there in the media). we have no way to know how it would do without the file sharing.
        
        what we do know is that a significant amount of the population enjoys movies without paying. if the movies were not available for free, would they still want to see them? if the answer is yes, then it is clear that there is a negative effect from piracy.
        
        it is the same old arguments, like trying to show that raping the girl didnt really harm her.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're a fucking moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, from his original article, we do know for sure that the torrent helped increase exposure and brought in a lot more money. That was pretty well indicated by his statements of people emailing him and sending him money after all he asked for was a small notice distributed with the torrent. But then again, everybody here knows you aren't one to let facts get in the way of your arguments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, in Mister Bozzo's case... it went from 0 (as in no chance anyone would get to see the movie) to a lot. And it even brought in money... So, in this case, filesharing had a definite positive net result.
        
        And indeed, there is no way to know that the filesharing of Wolverine did anything to the box office release. Not positive, nor negative.
        Fact is, it was heavily pirated, fact is also that it did extremely well at the box office. Better in fact than similar movies with much better ratings and reviews. Where were the negative results from filesharing there? People were slamming the movie online for the cheesy and awful special effects, and non-existant storyline. And yet it did better than for instance Star Trek, a much higher anticipated movie.
        
        Oh, and stop equating copyright infringement with rape, that's way out of line and you know it, it doesn't help your argument, but undermines it in a very big way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >Oh, and stop equating copyright infringement with rape, that's way out of line and you know it, it doesn't help your argument, but undermines it in a very big way.
        
        Considering that TP's also attempted the same argument, I think it both helps and undermines his argument in more ways than one, both scenarios not in his favour.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DocMenach (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what we do know is that a significant amount of the population enjoys movies without paying. if the movies were not available for free, would they still want to see them? if the answer is yes, then it is clear that there is a negative effect from piracy.
        
        Very interesting jump you made there. I am very curious how wanting to see a movie turns into revenue. Last I checked I can want to see a movie a whole bunch, but unless I plunk down some cash then there is no revenue. There have been lots of movies that I may have wanted to see but never did.
        
        There is also a big flip side to your argument: If the movies were not available for free, would less people know about the movie and paid to see it? If the answer is yes, then it is clear that there is a positive impact from piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        there is no way to know what would have happened without file sharing. there is no indication that the file sharing did anything positive for the movie (except perhaps get the name out there in the media). we have no way to know how it would do without the file sharing.
        
        Exactly - we have no way of knowing.
        
        what we do know is that a significant amount of the population enjoys movies without paying. if the movies were not available for free, would they still want to see them? if the answer is yes, then it is clear that there is a negative effect from piracy.
        
        No - as you said before - we have no way of knowing.
        
        As far as enjoying movies for free is concerned - there are always movies available for free on TV. If newer movies were not available via the net then I guess those people would simply watch TV. You have no way of knowing that they would have spent money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If newer movies were not available via the net then I guess those people would simply watch TV.
        
        In which case the licensing fees for said movies would go up, and the point holders would earn higher royalties for their work.
        
        Great argument!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 6:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not movies on TV but TV shows on TV.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In which case the licensing fees for said movies would go up, and the point holders would earn higher royalties for their work.
        
        Sounds like a reasonable argument - but the people who watch for free are time rich but cash poor. As such they have no significant disposable income. Therefore as a demographic they have zero value to advertisers and so don't add to the marketability of the films they watch on TV.
        
        Advertisers want the attention of the time poor/cash rich section of the community (which is much scarcer) - but this is the section of the community that does pay for cinema tickets DVDs etc (unless the producers choose to put them off with oppressive DRM).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 14 Jun 2010 @ 3:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "it is the same old arguments, like trying to show that raping the girl didnt really harm her."
        
        Hey FUCK YOU TAM, you can fucking DIE you piece of shit. My niece was raped and that is NOT THE GOD DAMN SAME THING as fucking FILE SHARING. At ALL. For you to make such a disgusting and offensive comparison shows just what a piece of scum you are.
        
        You are fucking piece of shit and I hope you rot in hell.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are fucking piece of shit and I hope you rot in hell.
        
        One has to wonder if RD ever invoked Godwin's Law or failed to respond in kind to someone that did.
        
        I'm not the person you're responding to, but if I had the time I would look back through the Techdirt archives until I found just such an instance that revealed you to be the fucking hypocrite you no doubt are.
        
        "Copyright nazis" is a phrase used liberally in the various web 2.0 freeloader circles. Why don't you drag your soapbox over to some of those instances? Or perhaps you don't personally know any Jewish people well enough to vitriolically defend them from shitty analogies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 14 Jun 2010 @ 5:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Copyright nazis" is a phrase used liberally in the various web 2.0 freeloader circles. Why don't you drag your soapbox over to some of those instances? Or perhaps you don't personally know any Jewish people well enough to vitriolically defend them from shitty analogies?"
        
        And what the FUCK does knowing any Jewish people have to do with my criticism of a douchebag that would compare the RAPE OF MY NIECE to FILE SHARING?? Where did I mention Copyright Nazis? Please, enlighten us, O Great Genius of Our Time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and various web 2.0 freeloader circles.
        is a phrase commonly used by.....
        
        Seriously the moment you use any of these stereotyped put downs ( except perhaps with humorous intent) you show that you are not really interested in reasoned argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Almost Anonymous (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Totally agree with AC above regarding your status as a moron. Wouldn't it be awesome if the comment system allowed you to rename an AC on the fly, and then all of that AC's posts would retroactively receive the name change? Slightly tricky on the technical side, since all you'd really have to work with would be the IP address, and you wouldn't want to save modification data on the client side.
        
        But I digress. Bozzo said he had almost no exposure before the first film was shared, and he got lots of exposure after. So yes, we DO know what would have happened without file sharing.
        
        Also, bringing "rape" in is a different flavor of Godwin-ing this thread, but just as bad as bringing up Nazis. Minus two internets for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan Gerow (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re:
  He self financed his own documentary.
  
  He has everything to lose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 14 Jun 2010 @ 10:59am

hrm and @13
so that B movie horror flick bittorrent site with loads a cheese is harming what ?How?
keep trying your getitng there....
thats why its called risky business
all investments have risk
HOLLYWOOD wants to murder kill and imprison anyhting that can stop or impede its trillion dollar rise to global domination of the world MUAHHAHAAAHAHAH
...sorry got carried away there, just watched some PINKY and THE BRAIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 14 Jun 2010 @ 11:01am

The Pirate Syndicate, a de facto marketing group
Dear Sam Bozzo:

Thank you for demonstrating the value of our de facto organization, The Pirate Syndicate. We are aware that our tactics and operations may be viewed as controversial, even illegal in today's political climate, and we are exceedingly happy that you have come to realize the benefit we offer to you and your peers.

I, for one, look forward to working with you, and anyone who appreciates the time, effort, and donated services such as bandwidth, disk space, server hosting, and computing time we provide, at the personal expense of the individual members of our organizations. We agree - obscurity is the single largest problem faced by film makers, and it is one that The Pirate Syndicate, as the largest distribution network on the planet, is uniquely qualified to solve.

We are glad to see that you have not been swayed by the smear campaigns being run by a few of our competitors, namely, the MPAA, clients of US Copyright Group and ACS:Law, and some others. These groups feel threatened by the distribution and advertisement components of our business plan. They seem to believe that an end-user has nothing to offer except a few dollars here and there. In the past, this may have been true, however, technological innovation has caught up with human nature, and individuals are now able to compete with marketing and distribution firms.

This smear campaign is being challenged, in court and by the Pirate Party. It is fortunate that we live in democratic societies, where laws are intended to benefit the people, rather than litigious companies. The more these groups attack us, the faster the laws will be changed, preventing them from doing so in the future.

If I may make a suggestion (for you and your peers): Please make it exceedingly easy for our customers and us to show our appreciation for your high-quality movies. I, personally, have no need for DVDs cluttering up my home, as all my media resides on hard drives. Also, I am generally unwilling to purchase copies from competing services such as Netflix. Aside from providing word-of-mouth advertising and distribution, I have few means of supporting you and your projects, and even fewer methods of providing financial support!

Please consider creating other tangible products, such as personally signed DVD copies, t-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers and/or various other merchandise as may be appropriate for your films or your production company. Please also consider mentioning in the credits of your films, a web site that will accept donations for your projects.

Thank you again for your kind words. I look forward to doing business with you in the future.

Dave
The Pirate Syndicate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 11:11am

Anyone notice the similarity here?
Joss Stone said something similar back in November after the Lily Allen incident was entertaining us. She said that if you have a good product that you shouldn't worry about file sharing really.

MHO - A product is a product and the better it is the more money I am willing to throw at it. Period. If your movie is going to be broken from some people file sharing it, then you should have done a better job making the movie in the first place. Making a movie, writing a song, or even a book about teenage vampires is not going to instantly make you a millionaire. If its a crappy movie, and horrible song, and a lousy read all you did was waste time and money on an inferior product that no one is going to want to buy. That's life, that's business, now move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 1:43pm

I'll consider stop downloading when the film studios give me a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. If I can for any reason say I did not enjoy the movie and get my money back, then there would be less of a reason for me to pirate. Where "I just didn't like the movie" is a valid reason for a refund.

I would rather pay $10 to see a movie in a theater than download even a DVD quality version, but I hate paying $10 to see garbage in a theater. And I will pirate a movie to watch at home to avoid paying $10 for a movie that doesn't deserve my money. But I have absolutely no issue giving $10 for an enjoyable movie experience.

I had to apologize to my friends for dragging them to see "The Cable Guy" so many years ago. I still feel bad about that, and angry that the movie fooled me into seeing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re:
  I'll consider stop downloading when the film studios give me a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee.
  
  I bet you don't eat out too often with that attitude.
  
  I would love to see you inform a restaurant owner that you were not 100% satisfied with your meal and would therefore not be offering even 1% of the price in recompense. This, having already licked your plate clean, of course...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dude, don't be dense. You know exactly what he means. With movies and music, for WAY too long we've all been forced to buy a pig-in-a-poke. Everyone has gone to see a movie based on ads that turned out to be a complete piece of trash. (OMG, Tank Girl, get it out of my mind!!!) Everyone (well, everyone over 25 anyway) has bought a CD or tape or album or eight track based on a song they heard on the radio only to find out that was the only song they liked on that album!
    
    Now people don't have to just suck it up anymore. They can try before they buy. And yes, lots of people just don't buy. Well too damn bad. I can't even begin to count all the money I could have saved by not puchasing media that turned out to be garbage.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Julian Knight, 14 Jun 2010 @ 2:48pm

This is true.
Bad movies that are downloaded and eventually burned to disc for sales in impoverished areas that do not sell well eventually shows that the movie itself when it comes out on a retail DVD will not sell. Case in point; the latest remake of "Nightmare on Elm Street". The bootleg did not sell at all, according to an associate. The DVD will do no better. However, "Avatar" sold very well in bootleg form, and has been selling well in DVD. Even the first Star Wars film had bootlegs (and very bad ones from my recollection), but when it came out of VHS and eventually DVD, it sold amazingly well. In a way, the sales of bootleg copies of movies show the trend for sales of the eventual retail release. Maybe this will encourage moviemakers to make better movies in order to make profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 5:08pm
  
  Re: This is true.
  >>Maybe this will encourage moviemakers to make better movies in order to make profits.
  
  Unfortunately the big moviemakers equate "better movies" to mean "movies that make a bigger profit." When this is the objective the industry naturally gravitates to proven themes that have been market tested into mediocrity. It is very hard for a producer to be able to break through this studio barrier.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 5:25pm
    
    Re: Re: This is true.
    That would explain all the sequels and remakes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam Bozzo, 14 Jun 2010 @ 6:07pm

Thanks from the author/ filmmaker!
I am really overwhelmed with this positive support. I was so happy to have a place to voice an opinion and when Torrent Freak was kind enough to let me know that my Director's Cut was about to be leaked, I had to quickly write this article, and actually wrote it on my laptop while going through a car wash. They kindly edited all my mistakes that night, but perhaps the quick stream of consciousness writing worked. Again, I'm very grateful for all these proactive responses and just overwhelmed!

I also appreciate Anonymous Coward presenting a counter-point. We need that always to test theories. I may go point by point to explain to him why he is wrong in this case if time permits, but basically invite him to re-read my full article and realize most of his challenges are addressed there. On a side note, Anonymous sounds just like my ex-producer! It's eerie!

Thanks again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2010 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re: Thanks from the author/ filmmaker!
  You're welcome and good luck with your future projects.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Rice (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 5:52am

Bit torrents
Why, after going through all the problems of getting a bit torrent lit up into a decent movie, is a codec required also? I consider the business of getting a torrent fairly mysterious. I used to just download the newest version of Divx player, I'd have all the codecs. Someone has to make this codecs business easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 15 Jun 2010 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: Bit torrents
  Someone has:
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffdshow/
  
  ffdshow can decode almost anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2010 @ 11:10am

watched hackers wanted last night
i see now why this movie went unreleased. what a stinker! peeeee-ew! don't waste your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam Bozzo (profile), 21 Jun 2010 @ 2:05pm

Thanks for positive reviews!
So far some great reviews on blogs out there; such as:

"I can’t really express just how great the movie was. I would definitely recommend people should download it."

"This documentary shows the three hats of the hacking community, and how nearly all of them are under fire from the mainstream. No matter if you are a destructive, greedy black hat, an ambiguous grey hat, or even a moral, means-well white hat, it appears as though the established order is out to strike these brave men and women down, who are merely curious at the ways things work and have ideas as to how they should work. It's a great contemporary documentary on the state of cyber-warfare, exploit disclosure, and hacker ethos. Truly a superior counterpart to 2008's Hackers Are People Too. Not as funny, but a lot more intriguing, inspiring, and infuriating (yay for vowels). Definitely a must for hackers and everyone interested in the online community in general."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]