Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
from the a-deleted-link-does-NOT-equal-a-'gained-sale' dept
An interesting bit of information was uncovered and pointed out by Baldaur Regis and an AC in the comments of Mike's post detailing the not-so-crafty work of an industry shill who posted three comments as three different people from the same IP address.
The original Wall Street Journal article quoted Kathy Wolfe, a filmmaker and head of Wolfe Video, who said she spent a surprising amount of money battling piracy.
Last year, Kathy Wolfe, who owns a small independent U.S. film-distribution company, Wolfe Video, found more than 903,000 links to unauthorized versions of her films, which she sells around the world for $3.99 per download. She estimates that she lost over $3 million in revenue in 2012 as a result of stolen content from her top 15 titles. On top of that, she spends over $30,000 a year—about half her profit—just to send out takedown notices for her titles.$30,000 is a lot to spend fighting anything, much less something as nebulous as piracy. The fact that it was "half" of her profits was even more surprising, leading this AC to point out an easy way she could double her money.
Wait. You mean she could double her profit by just doing *nothing* ? That's actually a riot.While it isn't quite as simple as that, there is some truth to that assertion. This piqued my curiosity. If someone was spending half their profits having links taken down, they must have seen something that justified this expenditure. A business doesn't just throw half their profits in a hole unless that same hole is throwing money back. I assumed there must be a corresponding sales increase, and a noticeable one at that. So I emailed Kathy Wolfe to get some details on her anti-piracy efforts.
I'm Tim Cushing and I write for techdirt.com. I was wondering if you might be able to answer a couple of questions about your ongoing fight against piracy. What really got my attention was the fact that you're spending nearly $30,000/yr. sending takedown notices. (via WSJ and Digital Music News)Her first response was blunt and anything but informative.
While I understand your interest in preventing your films from being distributed in this fashion, I'm having trouble believing that this expense is generating a worthwhile return on investment. I was wondering if you could shed some light on that area.
Are you seeing a positive return in terms of sales increases?
Is it enough of an increase to offset the $30,000/yr. in expenses?
If it ISN'T generating the additional sales needed to justify the expense, what is the rationale for continuing this effort?
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. I'm looking to put together an article addressing the expense of your anti-piracy efforts, so if there's anything you'd rather withhold (exact sales figures, etc.), I can understand. What I'd really like to hear before I write this post is your take on this very expensive anti-piracy venture, especially any benefits you've seen, financial or otherwise, since you began this pursuit.
Hi Timothy,On one hand, she said she'd be happy to discuss this. On the other hand, the middle sentence sounded like the conclusions had already been drawn and the door three-quarters shut. I sent an email back pressing for more details.
I would be happy to discuss with you. Basically, without the take down effort I would be out of business. I have over 100 films to protect.
Kathy
Thanks for responding.At this point, Kathy became suspicious and asked me to explain who I was and what I was going to do with the information (pretty much exactly in those words). So, I explained myself again, breaking it down further.
What I'm actually wondering is whether this effort has any correlating effect on sales. I imagine the discussion shifts into "rhetorical" at this point. You're spending $30,000/yr. on this. If you dialed it back and spent $15,000, do you feel sales would drop to half their previous level?
What had you noticed before you decided to pursue these anti-piracy efforts? As you say, without issuing takedowns you would be out of business, so there was obviously a very noticeable sales drop. Did you start with a smaller effort and see no improvement and then decide to scale up? Or did you put as much as you could (financially) into this effort from the beginning?
Again, I'm very curious as to whether there's a noticeable increase in sales. To ditch the takedowns altogether would put you out of business according to you, but would scaling it back reduce your sales? Have you ever scaled back efforts temporarily and observed any increases or decreases in sales?
What I'm trying to do is get your perspective on this issue. You obviously feel that spending $30,000/yr. on anti-piracy efforts is a worthwhile investment.I'm assuming you have put together some data over the years that shows that this expenditure is paying off.That was eleven days ago. I fired off a quick message to bring me back to the top of her inbox, but received no response. That's a shame, because I'd like to believe that, as a business owner, she's weighed the cost of her efforts against the return on that investment. But she seems unwilling to discuss anything other than the amount she pays out ($30,000) and the amount she's "lost" to piracy ($3 million).
I'm putting together an article dealing with anti-piracy efforts. I'd like to have your input before I write this post because I'd actually like to hear your view from the inside. All I can do at the moment is speculate. I've rarely seen anyone come out and quote an exact figure on anti-piracy expenditures, so this potentially makes for a very interesting article. We all hear that major studios spend "millions" fighting piracy, but numbers are rarely provided as to what effect those efforts are having on sales. If anything is provided, it's an equally vague aggregate.
I don't have any interest in tearing down your efforts. You're the rights holder and you're doing what seems best for your business. But as a business owner, I have to believe that you've adjusted this plan over the years in order to see the highest return on your investment -- and those are the numbers I'm interested in.
I'm also curious as to how you arrived at the "$3 million lost" in 2012 via piracy (as quoted in the Digital Music News article about your efforts), but that's of secondary interest.
So, if you think I'm after this information to belittle, demean or otherwise harm you, nothing could be further from the truth. As I said, I'm on the outside and can only speculate on the rationale and sales fluctuations driving this business decision.
Once again, thank you for your time.
First things first, Kathy Wolfe and Wolfe Video has been around for 28 years, long enough to have witnessed large-scale changes in film making and distribution. Staying in this business as an indie filmmaker, who deals almost exclusively with a limited market, is impressive.
Also impressive is the fact that Wolfe Video isn't limiting itself to just a few large outlets. Wolfe is distributing her films through pay-per-view markets such as Comcast, as well as other major internet players such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and, just last year, Wolfe Video's own platform, Wolfe On Demand, which allows customers to rent or buy directly from Wolfe. Wolfe on Demand is a worldwide service, allowing these films to reach otherwise underserved audiences around the globe.
Wolfe Video seems to have explored a variety of markets and seems interested in making the most of the web's positive aspects. Now the question turns to the anti-piracy efforts. Does exchanging half your profit for DMCA takedown notices really make sense?
Wolfe feels this is effort is necessary to protect her business, as can be seen in her first reply to my emails. But is this outlay recovered with increased sales? That's a harder question to answer without any data to examine, but there are a few inferences we can draw. Despite her massive anti-piracy expenditures (and wealth of distribution options), her business is suffering.
"It's changed us," Wolfe said, while pointing to drastic company chops and cutbacks. That includes the trimming of 11 employees, a 50 percent reduction in Wolfe's marketing budget, and a major impact on new projects. Wolfe has even stopped paying herself a salary.There are three possibilities here:
1. $30,000 is what's needed to sustain Wolfe Video at its current pace. Not great, but better than going out of business. This assumes the deterrent efforts generate enough sales to keep Wolfe Video (barely) in the black. If this theory is correct, one would expect $50,000 worth of deterrent to increase income by a comparable amount.
2. $30,000 is not enough, but it's all Wolfe can afford. If so, then Wolfe Video is on the way out. Escalating the amount spent would likely not generate enough revenue to offset the expense, or at best, keep the company barely in the black and decrease profitability.
3. $30,000 isn't showing any noticeable impact, one way or another.
Of the three possibilities, the third seems most likely. This may seem like a broadsided slam against Wolfe's efforts, but she does make a few statements that lead me to believe this effort is mainly "faith-based" and hasn't been measured in terms of correlation to increased sales.
One of the indications is Wolfe's estimate of income lost to piracy. She states Wolfe Video lost nearly $3 million last year because of file sharing. How does she arrive at this number? I can't say for sure, but multiplying 903,000 links by $3.99/movie (Wolfe's quoted price per download) gives us $3,602,970. Perhaps realizing that not every link equates to a lost sale, the number was revised down a bit to the nearest round number. (Only most links equate to lost sales, apparently...)
Another indication is her blunt response to my first inquiry: "Basically, without the take down effort I would be out of business." This sounds like someone who has already decided that piracy can only be fought, and only with a ton of time, effort and money. What this doesn't sound like, however, is someone who's considered taking a more targeted approach, or backing off completely and measuring any corresponding sales fluctuations.
Then there's this quote (from a pro-SOPA editorial Wolfe wrote for the Huffington Post) which describes the futility of her efforts, while simultaneously making the claim that she's "forced" to send out thousands of DMCA notices.
As a distributor, I've been forced to devote resources to searching for and removing pirated copies of our films online (by sending DMCA notices). It is a time-consuming and expensive process. On one recent weekend, we removed over 300 links to a newly released title from a U.S. based cyber locker (each link can represent 1000s of downloads). The next day another 180 new links for the same film appeared on the same cyber locker. We found another 100 links to the film on a gay movie blog (a site which features free download links for more than 2,000 titles). This is just in the U.S., where sites are required under current law to take down links when they receive infringement notices. Multiplying that problem by a factor of 10 would not begin to cover the volume available via offshore sites, which are currently out of the reach of U.S. law.The implication seems to be that if she doesn't keep emptying this ocean with her $30,000/year teacup, no one (or hardly anyone) will purchase her company's films and support her business. This can't possibly be true. Piracy is an option for nearly everyone connected to the internet, and yet musicians, filmmakers, video game developers, etc. are all selling their output every day.
Removing links may generate a few sales, but certainly not enough to offset an effort of this magnitude. Some file sharers will never purchase anything, and if they can't pirate a Wolfe film, they'll simply find something else to download. Others will purchase something after an illicit "preview." Taking away the link they might have utilized simply sends them looking for other links... or other movies. Generally speaking, a failed search for a "free" movie rarely results in the sale of the same movie.
Wolfe Video is doing the right thing by diversifying its distribution across multiple services and, even better, by running its own in-house digital rental/download platform. These efforts will do more to increase sales (and profits) than $30,000 worth of takedown notices. It's hard not to view illegal downloads as "lost sales," but entertaining that notion results in deterrence efforts that far outweigh the benefits.
The fact is that removing illegal options won't generate sales. Removing a negative ("lost sale via illegal download") doesn't create a positive ("gained[?] sale"). It simply levels off at $0. Positive efforts will tilt that scale back towards the creators. Negative efforts max out at $0, at best.
As I stated in my email to Kathy Wolfe, I have no desire to paint her as someone who tilts at windmills to the tune of $30,000/year. She strongly feels this effort needs to be made in order to protect a business she's run for over 25 years. I can completely understand that. My concern is that this effort is over-funded and a long, hard look should be taken at any connection between the takedown effort and corresponding sales fluctuations.
Could the same be accomplished at half the price? How about $10,000 per year? Or $0? I think some experimentation is called for. Back all enforcement efforts off for a few months and watch for any signs of a sales decline. If the drop is precipitous, scale the efforts up and see if the numbers respond. But rather than intensify the efforts, slowly escalate until you find a balance between deterrence and sales that works out best financially.
Kathy Wolfe has obviously worked hard to keep Wolfe Films running for more than a
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: cost benefit, dmca, expense, kathy wolfe, takedowns
Companies: wolfe video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That is the single most important paragraph in this piece. You can have all the copyrights you want and attack infringing downloads all you want, but all that is effort, time and money NOT spent in convincing me to give you my money in exchange for a worthwhile product or service. Take it to a hypothetical extreme. You've removed all infringing links from the internet, such that the only method of obtaining your work is through you. Obviously what would happen is that at best your sales would still be more or less untouched. More than likely, they would have tanked, as news of all the effort you've gone to stop piracy translates to potential customers as "S/he cares far more about stopping us viewing for free than s/he does about creating a quality product/service. So, why should I give him/her my money then, if her offering is obviously going to be subpar?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
YOU WOULDN'T PAY FOR IT, ANYWAY! You'd just shift your argument so your conscience is clean and the money remains with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
So, what would she lose? Her focus should be on the ones who would. But she's focused elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
So, where’s the lost sale, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
Once you've eliminated all the piracy, you still have basic business challenges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
Spending that money for promotion and awareness might make far more difference in sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
While there is still insufficient evidence to make the conclusions empirical, all the studies done so far have found that the majority of people _will_ pay a fair price for something they like, even if it is available for free.
Then again, making blind assumptions about other people is a good way to make yourself look stupid. Perhaps that was your intent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
Not necessarily, boy.
But since there's no longer anywhere you can rent a dvd or bluray before buying (RedBoxes offer a far too-limited choice of rentals as opposed to the volume video stores offered before they disappaeared), being able to download the movie cheaply or for free allows you to select which ones you'll seek out for the full-featured dvd or bluray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
Netflix DVD has virtually everything for $7.99/month...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
Reported, because that's fucking stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
You're right! I don't like lima beans but at the restaurant my $50 entree came with lima beans...so now I like lima beans. You must be in full brain hemorrhage mode.
If not you could have sold it on to someone else and you'd probably have told potential purchasers that it was brilliant.
As industry has no problem selling turds I could see how this would be a viable option for you to suggest.
Of course second hand sales should be as illegal as piracy because they also don't put any money directly to creators.
Apparently first hand sales don't put any money directly into the hands of creators, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
You have encouraged someone to carry out what you consider to be piracy, Brilliant logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
The principle arguments against piracy also apply to second hand sales, so they should be as illegal as each other.
The statement that they should be as illegal as each other is a view I hold, but given that second hand sales are not illegal people seem to have skipped the possibility that I just might perhaps be of the view that neither should what is called piracy.
I will admit that my tone would suggest that I would not be taking that view but words do matter.
Might have bought is definitely not the same as would have bought, but insisting that people buy things that they will then regret buying is probably not a good business plan, not for anything other than the immediate short term and carries grave costs over all other terms.
I don't know how valid an argument it is that people become invested in products that they have bought and then don't know that it necessarily applies to dvds or blurays - but it's not an unheard of opinion - http://thetechblock.com/the-birth-of-a-fanboy/
So you have to allow at least the possibility.
Others have already pointed out that it wouldn't be just the individual owner who would knowingly unload a stinker and choose to mislead the purchaser about it's quality.
So many see what they expect to see in a comment and don't take any time to wonder if it might be perhaps deliberately ambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
Complete and utter bullshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
When the stand against piracy is extended to second hand sales, copyright is being extended from control of copying to control of the copies. It then can be used to make lending, or listening/viewing with a friend also an act of piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to hit report on these posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Rikuo": Nicely circular logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
She now has a couple options.
She may now tell you she has performed an extensive cost/benefit analysis and this is truly keeping her in business.
She may say wow I never looked at it objectively and tried to run the numbers, and will now do so.
Unfortunately, she will most likely say, But Piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting
Hopefully this exchange has given her a reason to go back to them and discuss how and why this enforcement is being done.
Like Tim said, there's room for experimenting here and it could very much end up saving Wolfe a lot of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what it sounds to me.
But really this would be the perfect way to perform some experiments. If I had the monies I'd offer to cover for any decrease in sales plus some advertising to boost up at the end of the study.
I'll risk what would happen if she completely halted her anti-piracy efforts:
- She'd see her profit more than double right away
- She'd see increased revenue resulting from increased exposure
And that with zero efforts to make the file sharing component to work for her advantage. But I"m fairly sure for the tonne (as Tim noted) that she's stuck in her religious faith that she must do it. Like paying for her place in Heavens.
I wonder if we could crowdfund this study?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or she could spend more money marketing the movies and play up the indie aspect of her business. Perhaps she could even share financial data with her customers so that they have a better understanding of how much each film cost, how many copies have been sold, etc. This would give customers a positive reason to purchase (in order to support her business) rather than a negative reason to purchase (because that is the only way possible to obtain the film.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And it sort of sounds like she is already doing positive marketing, though I could be wrong.
Of course I present all this purely my own opinion, even if there is some general evidence to support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the wrong business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TIM, you forgot to ask her the most important thing...
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
If Mike supports copyright, why are the pirates here? They take him same as I do: PRO-PIRACY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TIM, you forgot to ask her the most important thing...
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Be careful to not give personal details: only targets fanboy ad hom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TIM, you forgot to ask her the most important thing...
He's talking to himself.
OotB's finally gone around the bend!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TIM, you forgot to ask her the most important thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TIM, you forgot to ask her the most important thing...
She could double her bottom line by doing less work. Companies that don't take advantage of this situation wont be around for long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
And clearly, your emails are nothing but an attempt to solicit some numbers to better tell her "you're doing it all wrong!" She and anyone is quite right to stiff arm you.
HERE'S THE FACT: "without the take down effort I would be out of business."
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where fanboys assert that working industries are doing it all wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
------------
Saying something is NOT a fact does not make it not a fact.
Cushing has no right to the numbers, NOR is he working for her interests: she spotted an enemy and ignored him.
Let's get some facts about who pays Tim Cushing and Mike Masnick so we can decide on a) whether they deserve it b) whether their time wouldn't be better spent in other ways c) what interests drive their views.
See how easy impertinence is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Well for one I do, hence the Insider Badge on my profile. They earned my money by writing articles that interest me...so where does that leave your implications?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
You sure are interested in what these guys are doing? Perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Tim is not only informing her of existing evidence, but also offering her the opportunity to counter that evidence with her own findings.
And don't worry, I can always tell the real ootb from the fakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Yeah...What a dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
If we can't get numbers on how anti-piracy efforts work we can safely and rightfully assume they don't work. That's fine by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Here she had an opportunity to vindicate you. She could have shown the numbers that she's run, provided her analysis and shown that everything you claim is true. Yet she didn't. Why don't you complain that she had an opportunity to prove you and the rest of the copymites right, but she didn't. Here's the opportunity, blue. Get her to respond and prove you right. If she has irrefutable evidence that her DMCA notices are working, she has only to show it. We can't argue against facts. Let her show us the facts. I don't want to hear her claims if she's not willing to put facts behind it. Email her yourself. Tell her to vindicate you. We're all waiting. Waiting for the data to back you up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Geez, another fool with the same lame notion that you've a right to double-check this business owner. I repeat from above:
Let's get some facts about who pays Tim Cushing and Mike Masnick so we can decide on a) whether they deserve it b) whether their time wouldn't be better spent in other ways c) what interests drive their views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
That is Democracy.
These people want to attack individual liberties and subvert the law to suit their agenda. They certainly should be expected to back up their claims when it comes to matters relevant to public policy.
Your "appeal to authority" is an obvious fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Yet, here we are, with story after story of those who don't fight infringement being willing to show us their data, and those who fight infringement, making claims of "necessary this" and "need to that" not showing us the data that supposedly backs up their claims. Vindicate yourselves. Here's Tim, going out of his way to prove his detractors right, and they won't let him.
Show us the data. There have been those who embrace piracy and other business models, and they are willing to show us their data. But none who make the claim that fighting piracy is necessary are willing to show us their data. Again, none. Not a single one. Show it to us. Prove us wrong. Silence us once and for all. Vindicate yourselves. Surely there is one who is willing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
She has the right to publicly claim that piracy costs her millions of dollars in sales and tens of thousands in profits. The public has the right to ask her to prove it. It's astounding that you think the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
I urge everyone: STOP REPLYING TO THIS TROLL! He isn't amusing, he isn't informative, and he certainly isn't worth the time to even read, let alone reply to. (Yes, I recognize the irony inherent in this, but this is my last time bothering with ootb.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Wolfe Video mainly Caters to the LGBT Crew and I am very familiar with their Products.From Apr.1993 - July 2011 all these vids had to go thru my hands.
None of these films ever made him a big return but Videoport does Support many causes and I am proud to say both Bill and I Support the LGBT Community.I still have some LGBT Friends and my punk Art has some LGBT Fans.
I do not believe her story one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
How can we accept this as fact without Ms. Wolfe backing up her claim with actual proof?
She can assert the claim that she would go out of business without takedowns, but I don’t accept that claim without an offer of proof. As Mr. Cushing pointed out in the article, a large number of artists from varying fields ply their trade on the Internet every day, and a good portion of them do so to a successful degree.
I don’t buy for a minute that she’d go out of business if she stopped sending takedowns because she still makes money even with piracy of her films running so rampant that she spends half her income on fighting it.
You can’t offer a single claim with a basis in fact that Ms. Wolfe would go bankrupt if she stopped sending out takedowns, and judging by her lack of response to Mr. Cushing, neither can Ms. Wolfe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Without any evidence to back this up, I'd more willing to assume she's just having financial issues...like every other company.
It seems like piracy is just an easy excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
She works hard for her money as Tim mentioned, and then throws half of it away because she has a visceral emotional reaction to the piracy. That's bad business my friend. Repeating over and over that her "business would be destroyed" doesn't make it true, and her unwillingness to back the statement up with numbers proves that it's all based in emotion, not business sense.
Spending your business's money on a futile wild goose chase? THAT'S how you destroy a business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
"without the take down effort, I could grow my business to even bigger"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
FTFY.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The woman spelled out in no uncertain terms the economic hardships caused by piracy (which everyone understands, except the denialists at Techdirt- although most people suspect they're even lying about that as well...), then when she doesn't respond to you (after no doubt paying a visit to this train wreck of a blog), you're surprised?
Too. Fucking. Funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any one that doubts it is either stupid or a thief.
I see no other explanation for refusing to debate the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do your own 5th grade math and think about the retail price of 30k worth of DMCA notices sent. if even a fraction of them are lost sales, it's easily worth the outlay.
You guys look utterly ridiculous on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, that's easy enough, right? You don;t have to improve anything if you can blame the downturn of your revenue on something you can;t control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is piracy happening? Sure, we all believe that.
Is spending money on making it stop worth it? Well, we have some examples of piracy not making a difference, some where it helps, but all the people who claim it hurts don't want to show us their data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you ever contemplate how that money might be better spent connecting with potential fans so they search for legitimate copies instead of infringing ones?
Or does using your brain hurt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's listed right there in the above article the myriad legal services she offered her movies on.
You realize these tropes you spew are like 10 years old at this point and stale now, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone who claims otherwise is clearly an idiot who dares to doubt my credibility despite me not citing any supportive sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's what we're asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Assume one DMCA notice costs $1.
Assume one DMCA notice takes down one link.
Assume one taken down link prevents 10 downloads.
Assume 100 prevented download equals 1 gained sale.
With those assumptions, she sent 30,000 DMCA notices on 30,000 links, which prevented 300,000 downloads (which BTW, is more than the number of households in Seattle). Since 300,000 downloads were prevented, she gained 3,000 sales. Each movie is $3.99, so she gained $11,970, for a loss of $18,030, not to mention all of the sales she lost due to preventing a willing buyer from previewing the movies. In fact, she would need to prevent 7,519 downloads that equate to lost sales before breaking even. Not downloads; downloads that equate to lost sales.
Since she's willing to do this and to make the claim that if she doesn't she will go broke, then surely she has the data to back that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
"Assume one DMCA notice takes down one link."
No.
"Assume one taken down link prevents 10 downloads."
No.
"Assume 100 prevented download equals 1 gained sale."
No.
Spectacular job there, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the fraction only "recovers" a few hundred dollars worth of sales, is it worth it? How about $1,000? How about $10,000? At what point does spending more than you're making in return start paying off?
If she was seeing this pay off, I would imagine she'd have made a statement to that effect, like "$30K is a lot to spend, but we've seen X% sales growth and a decline in posted links." I've read multiple interviews with Wolfe and not a single one contains a statement that indicates this effort is having any impact on piracy or on her sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see, divide by pi, carry the one... hang on, I can get this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So maybe she could spend that money in a different manner and worry about attracting more customers instead of engaging in a fruitless pursuit that you and her think (without evidence) somehow generates money despite not really doing much of anything to stop me from pirating it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wasn't that what you and your ilk were going on about a couple articles back? That Mike "never backs up" his articles? Well...here we have exactly that going on. Yet somehow you're not calling her out on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a tidbit from one of her Huffington Post Articles:
"Those who finance films generally don't view LGBT storylines as box office winners. As a result, filmmakers who want to tell these stories often turn to creative forms of financing. The process can be a long and brutal one."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-wolfe/piracy-profiteers-time-to_b_1210132.html
So using your logic of just "assuming shit", I could say she's losing money from the possible scenarios:
a. Indie filmmakers are experiencing economic hardships like everyone else
b. Indie filmmakers are not going to her to have their films released
c. Popularity of LGBT movies is in decline
d. Wolfe Releasing is losing money to piracy
Any one of these things could be happening and they all effect her business. There may even be a combination of events, but piling it all on piracy is asinine, especially when it feeds your anti-techdirt agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The woman spelled out in no uncertain terms the economic hardships caused by sending DMCA notices, which apparently are doing nothing"
The point is that MAYBE there's a better way to use $30,000 to increase sales. Hell, she could give the $30k to me and I'd buy like, 10 movies from her! That's what we call a win-win right there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only DMCA notices were easy to send
This is just more proof of how Big Search is a creator hater who wants to make life impossible for the artists. If the artists make money, there's less for the billionaires at Big Search.
Big Search is quite happy to lock down their network when it suits their interests. If you want to upload something to their compute engine, they want you to link your cell phone to your account. They want only real names who can be tracked.
They could use the same rules for YouTube but that would cut off the source of all of their material that they use to sell ads.
They could also make it possible to file a DMCA notice with one click. You can flag objectionable content with one click but not copyright infringement. No. That would hurt the bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
No point in reading further.
Google has the process so streamlined, it is ridiculous, and this is a well known FACT.
I challenge anyone who's suspicious to visit Google's page about DMCA takedowns and see for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Now compare it to how long it takes to upload pirated material to YouTube.
They could make it as easy as flagging inappropriate content but they don't for one reason. It's all about the billions baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[1] There are 5 by the way. I hope this doesn't bring techdirt to a halt as every commenter busies themselves reading this long list, but at least we'll know bob won't make another comment for 12 hours:
By checking the following boxes, I state that:
∗ I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
∗ This notification is accurate; and
∗ UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
∗ I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
∗ I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Were your lips moving while you were reading it, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Here's the short version: Don't lie. For someone with such a strong, unwavering moral compass, this shouldn't have been hard for you to work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Now let's add up all those numbers. Let's see:
2 seconds to search for the form
+ 3 seconds to read and click
+ 20 seconds to fill out and submit
-----------
26 seconds to file a DMCA notice.
We'll assume you don't write the script. Now, I just did a search for "bob" on youtube. There were 22,400,000 results. By your claim, file names and descriptions are all you need to know if it's infringing, so more math:
26 seconds
x 22,400,000 bob videos
/ 3600 seconds per hour
/ 24 hours per day
/ 365 days per year
-----------
18.5 years to file DMCA notices on all of the obviously infringing files on youtube.
Wow, you were right. Better learn some scripting skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
I think you haven't heard that yet. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Ok, I think your proposal of a DMCA notice button is silly since only the rights holder could legally use it. Why would they put a button that 99.999999999999999999999% of users can't use?
But, if they did, would you find it acceptable that if you filed 6 or more invalid DMCA notices that Google would only then accept snail mail DMCA notices from you from that point forward? You know, kind of a six strikes program for copyfraud? Seems fair to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Copyright claims, though, come with the weight of a penalty for perjury. Whether that penalty is ever carried out is rather irrelevant; it still has that penalty as a possibility. Google is just making sure you're following the law and understand the ramifications. And just as well, the law is the law, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Snail mail for everything, not just DMCA notices. Six false notices and you don't get to use email any more. After all, the six strikes program doesn't just throttle your connection for copyright infringement, it does it for everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
The reason you think it takes hours is because you're so pathetically stupid it takes you that long to go through what must be the most streamlined way of sending a DMCA/DMCA style notice. Again, you've only got yourself to blame when people know that your IQ can be measured in the single digits...and that's if we disallow negative IQs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Oooh right...you're the one who doesn't in the abuse of the current DMCA system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Bing is a little more difficult than others, but there just backwards.
Google is fast and reliable.
Its not the search engines that are the problem (well bing a little), its some of the hosts that can be difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
But you're right about the other sites. They're often much, much worse that Big Search. But that's not a reason to let Big Search off the hook for their complacency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
photos & videos, i watermark them and don't pursue any dmca on them.
No, you can't keep up with the tide, but there is no reason to loose sleep over it. I know what its like to see your work availible online in an nonauthorized outlet. I used to agonize over it, but not anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
bob, as I've pointed out before, Google (aka Big Search) provides an easy to complete "form" to fill out. Basically it ask you 3 multiple choice questions, after which you enter your contact information and links to the infringing links.
That's it. So either A. you think answer multiple choice questions and entering you contact information is "as hard as possible" to do or B. you're an idiot.
My money is on B.
"It takes seconds to pirate something with YouTube but hours to figure out their scary notices wrapped around the DMCA process."
False. It takes seconds to find something to pirate. It doesn't take seconds to actually pirate it. Bandwidth speeds vary, so it can take minutes, hours, days, weeks. All depending on the popularity of the material. Less popular means less seeders means slower speeds.
Again, it takes literally 5 minutes tops to fill out the DMCA notice form. If it takes you "hours to figure out" then you're doing it wrong or an idiot. Or both.
"This is just more proof of how Big Search is a creator hater who wants to make life impossible for the artists."
Which is exactly why Google isn't going into talks with the labels to start a subscription music service and exactly why they aren't giving money to creators to start their own YouTube channels, which will both (the music service and YouTube channels) be available to customers as ONLY paid options. Oh wait, they are doing all of that.
They also SELL allow creators to sell their books, music, TV shows and movies in the Play Store.
All of which is a far cry from making Big Search "a creator hater who wants to make life impossible for the artists".
"If the artists make money, there's less for the billionaires at Big Search."
Again, false. Because if people consume the content Google wants to put on the Play Store, all of which must be purchased, it keeps people in that Play Store atmosphere. Meaning giving the artists AND Google their dollars. Making money for everyone involved, the artists and Google.
"Big Search is quite happy to lock down their network when it suits their interests."
You mean lock down by allowing anyone and everyone FREE access to any of a number of useful services? Yeah, sounds very locked down.
"If you want to upload something to their compute engine, they want you to link your cell phone to your account."
Uh, no. They don't. If you want to upload something to any of their services (YouTube, Google Drive, etc) they only require that you login with your Gmail account. WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LINKED TO YOUR PHONE NUMBER. (Unless of course you want to link it for password recovery purposes. But that is purely optional and up to each user to do or not do.)
"They want only real names who can be tracked."
Which is exactly why they ask for birth certificates and social security numbers when you sign up for their services, so they can verify identities. Oh wait, they don't do that either.
You can literally enter any name you want.
"They could use the same rules for YouTube but that would cut off the source of all of their material that they use to sell ads."
Not too mention the fact that taking down all that material would be one less source of revenue for artists and copyright holders. Lest you forget Content ID, which was created and funded entirely by Google and ACTIVELY monetizes any infringing content with the funds going back to the rights holder.
"They could also make it possible to file a DMCA notice with one click."
Yes, because three clicks (on three multiple choice questions) and a wee bit of typing is so difficult. /s
"You can flag objectionable content with one click but not copyright infringement."
Well, considering even rights holders have a hard time determining what is or isn't infringing, that's a plus. And one for the rights holders as well, lest they take down their own content.
Oh wait, they've done that on numerous occasions through the more onerous and "difficult" method of filing DMCA notices (3 multiple choice questions and a contact information fill out).
"No. That would hurt the bottom line."
Their bottom line is to get eyeballs on ads. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't care how it gets done as long as people click ads then Google makes money. That you don't understand what their bottom line is or how it's achieved is testament to your lack of intelligence.
You should take a trip to the library some day. Oh wait, you think they're grifters. Nevermind. Can't have you getting a clue, now could we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Micro-Licensing & Digital Fingerprints Might Be In Order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Micro-Licensing & Digital Fingerprints Might Be In Order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Micro-Licensing & Digital Fingerprints Might Be In Order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bingo. This is the real reason why it's worth spending $30K on anti-piracy efforts. It has nothing to do with whether or not anti-piracy is actually effective at raising sales. It's all about protecting relationships and being seen as a trustworthy distributor.
The film distribution is built on favours and horse trading, and it's all regional. Distribution rights are divvied up into exclusive sections, and distributors specialize in specific areas where they have rights to distribute.
Piracy doesn't care about exclusive contracts. Once it's available online, it's available everywhere, and the formerly exclusive agreements don't mean squat. Now, granted, you can't stop piracy, but as a distributor, you don't want to be seen as the one who let the horse out of the barn. So you do as much as you can to be seen visibly fighting piracy, whether or not it's effective.
Kathy isn't spending money to protect sales. She's spending money to protect relationships. I believe Tim 100% that the $30K does nothing to boost sales directly. But, he's missing what that $30K is actually buying: Credibility that will give her access to a wider variety of more lucrative film s to distribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That could be. It's an interesting angle. Has anyone heard of anything like this happening with distributors like Amazon, Netflix or Comcast?
My only argument with this take is that she runs an independent studio and, with the exception of her own Wolfe on Demand, sells/streams through other platforms that simply take a cut of the sale/rental, rather than have anything invested in the films themselves. Thus, there's no real loss to these platforms if people DON'T buy or rent Wolfe's films. The effect of piracy on their bottom line isn't direct enough to be an issue.
(I can see Comcast demanding something like this from its "partners," but only because it seems like the sort of onerous demand Comcast would make. The company hasn't earned widespread hatred by being genial and compliant.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The simplest explanation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm reminded of the 4K film, TimeScapes, where the director commented on the film's torrent on Pirate Bay, "Greetings. I am Tom Lowe, the person who spent two years of his life living out of a Toyota pickup truck to make this film. If you enjoy it, please consider buying a copy from our website at TimeScapes.org or at iTunes, or maybe giving it as a gift to a friend, so we can recover the money we invested in the film, and then make some more films for your enjoyment. :)"
I don't know how his film did in terms of revenue, but I can tell you this method really connected with people. In the end, people who pirate your film just want to watch your film. Why treat them like the enemy with a DMCA takedown, when you can start a conversation and connect with your audience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$30,000?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What else
Numbers would be great, but what's interesting here is how much more money she could make by spending that 30k on creating, on doing the thing she actually loves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typo
Think you mean century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things don't automatically become fact just because you utter them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
erm
Maybe shuffle 10k
from the dmca
to "buy this today"
whaddya say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a side commentary, I remember when I used to pirate (mind you I was younger, like a kid, a minor, or just out of it), indie stuff was off-limits, we only pirated people who deserved it or could afford it. But honestly, pirates, just losing it nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She should look at what Troma is doing, and start thinking of how piracy can be used as a marketing tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looked at what she distributs ... could explain why she's a target of piracy.
Perhaps due to the nature of her product, she really IS a target of high levels and piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looked at what she distributs ... could explain why she's a target of piracy.
....sorry i had to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies, Music, Whatever
I will make the leap and clearly suggest that she is throwing cash out the window.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just look at SimCity. No one can play that game because of its Digital Rights Management.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally, I've never heard of her or her movies or her company so the odds that I'll ever give her any money for her product is zero. But if someone shared a DVD of her work with me and I loved it, I would investigate her product and there would be money going from my pocket to hers at some point. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that sharing = word-of-mouth = free PR that PR companies desperately spend mounds of cash to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's doing it wrong
She should ignore the links to the file locker and instead issue the takedown against the file locker itself. When they take it down, all of those links become worthless.
Just that change alone will get her the same results with a lot less effort and expense. Also, it's more ethical to directly target the infringing content rather than those who are just pointing to the infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: She's doing it wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not again!!!!
But hey everyone thinks they should be making more from their content, i am sure there are many movies that have made less than her movies have made, blaming piracy is crazy. I have not seen any of her movies on any of the sites i visit and in fact a lot of the movie covers on her site seem to show that her movies are rather old, not from this last decade that is.
I would not download any of the movies on her download site, and i would not waste my bandwidth on them by using torrent either. Maybe she needs to accept that her movies have no value to anyone or to very few, maybe she needs to accept that people are watching fewer and fewer movies these days, what with the internet as entertainment that can keep people busy for hours on end.
I would personally have liked to have seen how she justified the expenditure on fighting piracy, i would have liked to have seen how much difference her spending 30 000 made, and sadly i doubt we will ever hear from her, as she sounds like someone who is just out to blame others for her failure. A pity because as could be seen in many cases techdirt has assisted rather a few movie publishers to find the right path to generate a little or even a lot more wealth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not again!!!!
So those 100 movies could all be making millions and she just had a TON of overhead.
Also, in Hollywood you're lucky if you EVER make a profit on a movie, Hollywood Accounting and what not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not again!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not again!!!!
Assuming a 40% corporate tax rate, the number could be actual dollars going out equal to $50 000, or actual cost to her is $18 000.
Hence Tims' e-mail asking for details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you ever noticed that a majority of the DMCA service providers were started by people with links to one of the cartels or subsidiaries? (One would point out the history of Dtecnet currently owned by a LARGE corporations after a couple acquisitions... yet providing really crappy work.)
Have you considered that maybe to keep the deals she has, they require her to make efforts to make sure there are not places to acquire it without paying the other players? (We get a cut for the music, the band that played it, the composer, a fee for the brand of cymbals, oh you had a logo in your scene, etc etc... is DMCA fee's the newest cash cow?)
You can join the boy scouts and do all of the work, but you still have to pay to get the merit badge...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That nicely describes what I consider the fastest growing problem in today's market place. Not only does everyone want a piece of the pie (that's been true for a long time), they have now come to expect it and get angry when they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We often talk about how misguided the 'War on Piracy' seems to be. They create numbers, moral panics, and show how they are being left empty penniless shells... except for as long as its gone on, for as much as they claim to have lost, the simple fact is not one of them has failed.
Who is making the money in the 'War on Piracy'?
Not Google, they are being forced to spend huge piles of cash to service the faulty submissions pouring in at an increasing rate.
Could this just be trying to break Google's will to create a super secret fast track system for the cartel membership?
Not content creators, they are having to keep up with the Joneses. We see here a small indy having to pay out so much that the business most likely will fold, which would put them and the content on the auction block for pennies on the dollar that one of the majors could scoop up.
Not the public, media costs have remained pretty much the same despite technology making it possible to deliver infinite copies of the content for pennies.
What if we've been wrong, the 'War on Piracy' isn't about lost sales, unemployed popcorn farmers, but a handy tool to control competition and another revenue stream.
You can't go indy, you'll end up paying everything you make to stop piracy of your work... sign here on our contract and we'll protect you. Of course the costs of protecting your work will come out of the small percentage we said we would pay you. Well yes your content did make 500 Million worldwide, but after we paid all of the rights groups in each subdivision of the globe, repaid our advertising loan to you, purchased the rights to the art for your box art, and all of these other fun things your take was 0, oh and then there is this list of fee's you need to pay so in the end you owe us $500. Of course we could roll that debt into your next project funding, I'm sure that one will do much better...
And someone in the cartel got paid for the piracy fight.
And someone else in the cartel got a cut of the licensing fees.
And...
While we spend all this time focused on the clearly insane ranting of the cartels, did we forget they exist to make money and we've not bothered to follow all of the cents they are skimming out of the numbers at every possible step?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offering their own VOD service is a great step, but it has to be followed up with some targeted marketing. After all, if there is no market, then they have no business.
I'm sure they have a business. Markets change, the business has to change to find them. It's likely that fans of her work would market it themselves by sharing with their friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Very little about me is mundane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"And let's face it, while gays and lesbians were a hot item 25 years ago they have since become pretty mundane."
Many of the films are dramas focusing on the lives of members of the GLBT community. Other than people pointing out how "gay" Twilight was there aren't exactly a long list of mainstream movies released catering to the demographic. Showing us as more than the best friend hairdresser giving sage advice to the star who can't see the right man is next to her, or laying in a bed slowly dying to as the star gently weeps to show how caring they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should be easy to see if the sales are unusually and inexplicably low because of the free availability. It'll also be interesting to see if you could actually politely monetize all those "lost sales".
All carrot, no floggings. How'd that work out? I'm curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Closeted LGBT people might not exactly want records of these things out there. It doesn't matter how discreetly you package your deliveries in some communities, word can and does get out.
Then there is this whole rest of the world thing where you can be executed for being LGBT in some places.
So those people aren't lining up to pay her even $3.99 (if the georestrictions even cover those areas) for fear for personal safety. Oh they can put that on their credit card... except with data mining that can lead to even more problems. They can't tell their friends and we think they'll tell Visa? Credit card companies who raise rates or cut limits if you shop at stores frequented by people who don't pay their bills.
While these are unique issues, they are still valid for at least some of the consumers.
One does wonder if there was a way to send a payment to a nondescript company name, if that subset of users would take advantage of it. When your target demographic isn't allowed to be themselves in everyday life, you need to think outside the box a bit more.
I don't remember how much Dan Bull made with his experiment, but even giving it away on TPB he made the charts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am willing to bet money that the people that are downloading these soft core lesbian movies are men in countries or IT departments where mainstream porn sites are blocked, but soft core lesbian porn flies under the radar. Maybe these films fly under the radar of parental control software. Maybe it is men who are ashamed and don’t want to actually be attached to anything branded as “porn” on credit card statement that might embarrass them. Maybe it is gay men who are trying to hide their sexuality. Perhaps Wolfe’s films has gained a following with these types of people, and so they search for Wolfe’s titles. I assume a similar thing has happened with Ellen Seidler of popuppirates.com fame and her film “Along Came Lola.”
I refuse to believe that there are this many users in the core intended audience (gay and lesbian erotic fans with a few dollars to spend) who just flat out don’t want to pay for anything. It just doesn’t seem like they would behave this way.
If I were Wolfe I would set up a few honeypot sites to determine where the traffic is coming from. Then I would try to figure out why they don’t want to buy the legitimate versions directly. Then I would figure out how I can get these types to pay. Maybe a separately branded site where payment is discrete. except for in the case of parental control software I would ask that those companies block searches for my titles). Maybe for the straight men looking for lesbian porn I would try to send them to something more suited to them (like mainstream straight man porn).
Parts of the mainstream porn industry has figured all of this type of stuff out a long time ago. It’s the old lesbians that are, for whatever reason, known for being set in their ways.
So let’s run through a few possible scenarios from the research and imagine what the outcome might be:
-Gays and lesbians in repressive countries where homosexuality is illegal or dangerous:
Offer a discrete website and method of payment and see if sales increase through this channel.
-Teen boys who have figured out a source of porn that evades parental control:
Report all movie titles to parental control software vendors so this demographic has a harder time finding pirate copies (and I would not imagine this would increases sales).
-Gay teen boys who don't have a credit card and can't ask for help to purchase a film because they don't want to be outed: offer alternative payment methods, ensure discrete shipping.
-People outside the US and Canada with slow bandwidth: figure out which top countries demand is coming from and set up physical distribution there.
When I visit wolfevideo.com to register I am only given the choice of United States or Canada for countries. However, if I go to the steaming site wolfeondemand.muvies.com I find I can be in any country. If wolfevideo.com linked people outside of the US and Canada to http://wolfeondemand.muvies.com this might help drive paid conversion. However, I am guessing some countries do not have enough bandwidth for a realtime stream, so they must download the film they want to see.
Why are gay and lesbian movies pirated so much? Which type of movies (gay or lesbian) are being shared, and in what geographical regions? There are just a lot of questions which, if answered and recommendations made and followed, could save thousands of dollars and improve conversion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait! DESERVES a salary?
But here, someone doing nothing useful (well, entertaining people might be "useful", but it is a stretch to say so!) somehow DESERVES a salary?
What if someone actually does something useful and lasting; should we have a law giving them a salary because "they deserve it"?
Don't think so, and I think it is outrageous to argue that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is pretty facepalm-y.
$0 anti-piracy in, $n sales out.
$30K anti-piracy in, $n+/-y sales out.
$100K anti-piracy in, $n+/-z sales out.
Note that the curve doesn't have to be linear (or always increasing/decreasing) but the $30K is the input to whatever sales output she saw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any new Information - Dialogue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]