New Zealand Censors Horror Film, Making It Extra Popular With Downloaders
from the well,-duh dept
This should go without saying at this point, but as government continually try to censor stuff, the internet just kind of mocks them. New Zealand censors have apparently decided that the horror flick Maniac -- a Cannes Film Festival selection that is starring Elijah Wood -- is just too damn scary for New Zealand sensibilities, and banned it. However, as TorrentFreak notes, banning the film seems to have only resulted in it getting downloaded a ridiculous amount in New Zealand. Of course, if New Zealand censors hadn't been so squeamish and actually allowed the movie to play in the country, the filmmakers would actually be making money. Instead, they get none of it. Of course, you also have to wonder how much extra publicity New Zealand censors gave to this movie by declaring that it was too scary for Kiwis to watch.
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: attention, censorship, downloading, horror films, maniac, movies, publicity
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "censorship only serves to draw people's attention"
You've found the site of Internet Quipper Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick! -- As you'll frequently be reminded!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
viral marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt has no legal or moral obligation to allow you to use the comments service as a platform for your self-expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody ever said Techdirt is obligated to provide a forum for anybody. It is ironic and hypocritical for the guy who (can't stop reminding us that he) coined a term dedicated to pointing out that censorship attempts usually result in increased popularity of the thing being censored having a "censor this post" button on each post on his forums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You wanna whine about how Mean Ol’ Mike is censoring you? You wanna bitch about how the Techdirt Commenters are shutting you down? You wanna complain about how nobody gets to read your ‘insights’ into the article at large?
THEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT CENSORSHIP IS.
Censorship is having the government tell you that you can’t speak your mind. Censorship is having a corporation yank down your words and your self-expression with the government-granted monopoly called copyright. Censorship is wanting to say something but having no platform to say it.
You want censorship? Go to Iran and try to talk out against the government, or go to Russia and try to protest its anti-gay law (I bet Ed Snowden’s happy he’s not gay right about now), or go to some other ultra-conservative country and speak out for liberty and freedom of religion or women’s rights. See how long you last down there before your speech gets silenced by the government and you get tossed in jail or out of the country.
Techdirt ain’t no government body, my friend. Techdirt ain’t run by Congress or SCOTUS or the President. Techdirt is a privately-owned, privately-run blog that has no obligation whatsoever to allow you (or even me) to come in here and shit up the comments section. You wanna bitch about nobody reading your ‘insights’ or your ‘dissent’ from Techdirt’s opinions or the same kind of ad hominem attacks that you, Out of the Blue, and the other regular Techdirt trolls launch every day? Go follow some fuckin’ buzzards, because they’re the only ones that might give a shit.
You don’t have any rights here. You don’t have any special protections here. You have the privilege of commenting here, and if Techdirt admins wanted to, they could revoke that privilege in a heartbeat. Instead of complaining about ‘censorship’ where it doesn’t exist, how about you start looking at places where it does exist (such as New Zealand) and work towards changing that situation?
Until then, go cry to your momma, because she’s the only one that might give a shit.
Hallelujah, holy shit, where’s my goddamn tequila.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pffft! This assertion again. At best, USERS have NO obligation to Techdirt! Just because some bozo writes on a web page doesn't obligate anyone.
Techdirt, a business, for reasons of gaining money by selling your information makes a machine publicly available for anyone to use without prior approval. Users do not give up any rights to access a mere machine; it's Techdirt that gives up exclusivity by deliberately making the machine publicly avaiable. Access is regulated by public accommodation laws. Content is regulated only by common law terms. While users remain within common law terms on speech, arbitrary blocking of access to the machine is dicey at best, but sites can get away with it because too expensive to contest in court.
In other words, you say that Techdirt is an insular little bunch of kids who despite claims of wanting to "discuss" can't stand ANY dissent and want to purge the site so they can enjoy their petty thefts without nags of conscience.
And by the way, it's YOU who are detracting FAR more from the site than this or any other dissenter. I'd think you'd welcome opportunity to present your views rationally in refutation, but instead, you're defending your minor power to censor views that you don't want others to see. Some free speech forum.
Techdirt fanboys are totally committed to free speech -- which to them means links to FREE infringing content!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when do you plan to stop commenting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt, a business, for reasons of gaining money by selling your information makes a machine publicly available for anyone to use without prior approval. Users do not give up any rights to access a mere machine; it's Techdirt that gives up exclusivity by deliberately making the machine publicly avaiable.
And yet, Techdirt has no legal obligation to allow you to use that ‘machine’ to do or say whatever you wish. You cannot legally force Techdirt to allow you to comment on articles any more than you could legally force Techdirt to stop writing about copyright. You have no legal or moral authority over the content of Techdirt’s articles or which comments get hidden behind the ‘reported comment’ line.
Access is regulated by public accommodation laws. Content is regulated only by common law terms. While users remain within common law terms on speech, arbitrary blocking of access to the machine is dicey at best, but sites can get away with it because too expensive to contest in court.
Techdirt does not exist as a building that must accomodate people in terms of accessibility and non-discrimination laws. It can discriminate against you, me, or anyone else all it wants and you, me, or anyone else can’t legally do anything about it because a website is not a physical building.
And if Techdirt exists as a business (which you claim it does), then Techdirt has the right to refuse to let you use its services (i.e. the comments section) if it feels you will disrupt normal usage of the service (and you and your fellow trolls do that whenever you comment) — just as real-world businesses have the right to refuse service to you if you disrupt the normal usage of their services.
you say that Techdirt is an insular little bunch of kids who despite claims of wanting to "discuss" can't stand ANY dissent and want to purge the site so they can enjoy their petty thefts without nags of conscience
No, I say that you’re a troll and you offer nothing of worth to any discussion. If you want to dissent from anything Techdirt publishes, you can do so without resorting to ‘GOOGLE IS ALWAYS EVIL IN EVERY WAY’ and the ad hominem attacks launched against Mr. Masnick, Techdirt’s other writers, and the Techdirt commenter community at large (including me).
I don’t always agree with everything Techdirt says, and sometimes I don’t have the ability to express my opinions in words. (Mainly because, believe it or not, I have issues with trying to express opinions in the first place.) But that doesn’t mean I’ll come into the comments of an article where I disagree with something and say something childish and immature, then expect people to take my comments seriously. Whining about ‘MIKE CENSORED ME’ doesn’t make it true, whining about Google doesn’t it make it at fault for all the evils on the Internet, and doing both doesn’t make you any less of a troll.
If you want people to take you seriously and consider any legitimate points you may have and open up a viable discussion on a subject, stop acting like a childish asshole.
it's YOU who are detracting FAR more from the site than this or any other dissenter. I'd think you'd welcome opportunity to present your views rationally in refutation, but instead, you're defending your minor power to censor views that you don't want others to see. Some free speech forum.
I don’t think of reporting worthless comments as censorship, and I wouldn’t think of anyone reporting my comments as censorship because I still have other places where I can express my opinions — and so do you.
Have you ever heard of Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, YouTube, Instagram, Vine, Tout, Blogger, 4chan, or any other service that allows user-created content? You can use all of those to express any opinion that Techdirt ‘censors’, which means you haven’t actually suffered from any form of censorship.
When you’ve had the government or the legal system clamp down on your right to self-expression, then you can say you’ve suffered from actual censorship — but until then, don’t cry about something that hasn’t happened to you, because nobody will take that shit seriously.
Now do everyone here a favor and FUCK MILES OF OFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the once in a blue moon (¿is that where your name comes from?) occasion when you post something that is not full of your usual insults and pointless ramblings your posts remain visible and the community engages in discussion with you in a thoughtful and constructive manner.
Sadly the overwhelming majority of what you write before hitting the "submit" button is full of ad hominem attacks and mindless rants.
Crying censorship when you have demonstrated in the past that you clearly understand the concept and are choosing to be purposefully obtuse only serves to further undermine what little credibility you have and destroys what is left of the respect the community may have for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're ok with anything you agree with though, you wont censor that.
The majority if not all the comments censored here is because the person doing the censoring does not agree with the free speech they are reading, they seek to employ their power to censor to stifle free speech.
Free speech rights are about ALL free speech even if you don't agree with it. Anything else, by TD standards is censorship (except when don't on TD itself).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possibly not, but they most certainly have a MORAL obligation, considering it's owners stance on censorship and the stifling of free speech, and constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possibly not, but they most certainly have a MORAL obligation
You're not great at reading, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So in that case, this movie is also not censored, because people in New Zealand can still 'view' the movie ?
It appears by TD standards what TD does IS CENSORSHIP, it is censorship if anyone else does it, why would it not be censorship if TD does it.
Why acceptable for TD but not for anyone else ?
Of all places, TD should be an example of doing it right, but it appears not to be the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they could go see it in the theater by telling the ticket taker "yes, I'm really sure I want to see this movie" then that would not be censorship. In your analogy, readers would have to go to some completely different medium to read the hidden comments, which is not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If these people had the ability to delete the post they would start to do that for every comment they did not agree with.
The entire issue with censorship to stifle free speech is the problem, when this site is supposed to be opposed to censorship and for free speech.. !!!
The complete opposite to what the censors are doing here.
That's what makes it clearly censorship.. of the worst kind too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah fuck you too, AJ. It is a "report" button in ALL browsers you lying fuck.
It is also not censorship if:
a) it is not being done by a SINGULAR, CENTRAL AUTHORITY
and
b) it doesnt have the full weight of the law behind it
Me telling you to shut your fucking piehole, or even turning away from listening to you and giving warning others that, in my opinion, you dont have anything useful to say, is NOT censorship in any way that the word is defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Neither does complaining about ‘censorship’ where none exists or making comments that have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, but that doesn’t stop you from commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "RD": "shut your fucking piehole"
It's clear that you WANT to suppress certain opinions, just haven't got much power at it here. You arrogantly set yourself up as THE authority to decide what others will see: that IS censorship, sonny, still counts even it not absolute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "RD": "shut your fucking piehole"
Except his one vote doesn’t count towards much, and it’s not the final arbiter of which posts end up behind the ‘flagged post’ line. He’s no more a censor than you are — though I bet you would love to set yourself up as the authority in what opinions about copyright, intellectual property, and other such subjects end up in the public sphere (and all those opinions would probably fall under the ‘hey copyright is awesome we should make it eternal’ category).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "RD": "shut your fucking piehole"
The tyranny of the majority does not make a wrong action right, nor does it absolve each member from his or her actions. 10 men voting to punish an innocent man does not make it more right to do so than if one does. In a way, it's a little worse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "RD": "shut your fucking piehole"
A lame lie without least support. While YOU definitely do all you can to censor dissent here, including that post trying to shut me up. And without a bit of self-awareness.
But I DEFINITELY want YOU to continue poisoning the site, so keep going as you are!
by the way, I refuted you above on web sites and censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "RD": "shut your fucking piehole"
I don’t censor dissent. You don’t (and you won’t) see me asking Techdirt to remove your comments, and I can still read any of your hidden comments just fine after a single mouse-click.
But you? You want to whine about censorship and act like a little bitch because your ad hominems and your crying about Google get hidden because nobody sees any worth in your comments. That’s the real difference between you and I: I don’t give a shit if anyone reports my comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "RD": "shut your fucking piehole"
Techdirt isn't the one that censor your posts. It is the community that isn't as stupid and dumb as you that vote for it.
In other words, it is not one person... It is a lot of people.
Seriously, do the world a favor and "remove yourself from this world". You are wasting oxygen and other resources while you're on it and they would be better spent elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the thing about free speech, is the fact you can go into a public space and talk to the crown about ANYTHING, without being censored, you have a right to that speech, regardless of if you agree with it or not.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL that person to go somewhere else so you cannot hear him.
You have a right to go away, not a right to tell him to go away.
This is the same thing, you don't have to read the posts, but you equally don't have the right to stop him from saying it, or telling him to say it in some way so you don't have to read it.
That makes it the worst kind of censorship, and censorship abuse, condoned by Masnick and Techdirt, a web site that claims to uphold your constitution and be against censorship..
So why state a fact and live a lie ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a private website. They have the right to set it up however they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia says that someone(s) does understand the meaning of the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wikipedia says that someone(s) does understand the meaning of the word.
If you think that's what the Report button is, you're delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A turnaround !!!
So, let's get this right, You are saying the download movies deprives the filmmakers the ability to make money ???
I actually agree with you on this fact Mr Masnick.
I am glad you made that point clear for us all.
"Instead, they get none of it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A turnaround !!!
No, he's saying not having the movie in theaters deprives them of the ability to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.. and he's right.. we all know it is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
Which nobody denies - at least in the direct sense. Unless you can point to a statement made by anyone here that a pirated copy makes direct revenue for the film, which would be a very strange claim (learn how to cite, an out of context quote from an unidentified source still doesn't count).
What you idiots tend to forget is that they often do lead to indirect sales, which is why it's pointed out that "free" can actually make you money and why a pirated download does NOT equal a lost sale. People often still buy things they have pirated, and buy related merchandise, etc. A pirated copy does not mean that the person won't still go the see the movie in the cinema, or buy a DVD copy when that's available, or recommend it to friends who then go to pay for it, and so on.
The reason this particular movie isn't making money in NZ is not because of the piracy - it's because no such legal channel exists. The censors are the ones stopping the movie from making money in NZ, not the pirates. But, you're either a liar and know that, or you're too stupid to understand the actual arguments being made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
It says as much, You are mistaken that these people would have not downloaded it, and gone to see it at the pictures.
But it's an admission, that a download makes no profit for the makers, that's what Masnick said, and he is correct !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
How? People are unable to buy it. So how is there a lost sale when no sale is allowed in the first place?
Try stop obsessing over your fictional strawmen and address reality for once. How can a sale be lost if none is offered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
Get George Orwell's "1984" removed from your public domain; you owe his corpse money! You freetard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
Why not both? He's somehow managed to come up with the idea that a banned product is losing sales because of piracy. You'd have to be really dumb to make that idea work in your head. It's a familiar blindness to reality that happens whenever darryl comments, but a lot of these guys seem to lose the ability to read properly whenever that word is mentioned, so who knows who it really is?
The irony here, of course, is that this is a situation where piracy could actually be used to increase sales. The whole point is that piracy makes any attempt at a ban totally ineffective. So, the fact that it's available could be used to convince the censors to lift the ban, rate it for adults, and allow people to pay money for the product. It might require something of a cultural change in the NZ censor office, but it's generally worked in the UK (where the film is available uncut, although the original 1980 film is still censored).
But because "piracy" is mentioned, certain people lose the ability to think critically or even address the real arguments being made. Although I would like to see what logical contortions he would go through to explain how a product that's banned from sale is losing sales. The only logical alternative would be to import a copy from another country, but this would also be in violation of the law so he'd be a fool to try that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A turnaround !!!
Yes, the question is whether he's only really dumb, or if he's really dumb and also darryl.
Although I would like to see what logical contortions he would go through to explain how a product that's banned from sale is losing sales.
He won't. He'll just keep saying "a download makes no profit for the makers" even though that doesn't address anything being said. Because he's really dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's censorship because
It's done to stifle free speech, and open discussion and debate.
Some people here are under the assumption that if everyone always agreed with the articles here, then somehow that would promote more debate and discussion and more people to this web site.
Fact is no one wants to read every comment being in full agreement of Masnick or the author of the article.
You think everyone agreeing would make this site better ?
The problem is you use this ability given to you by Masnick to censor and stifle free speech, and you have take that ability to it's extreme. Using it to stifle comment you don't agree with. Using it as a power to censor. Something I feel is against Masnick's opinion of the use of censorship.
You can play with semantics all you like, or specific legal definitions, or 'obligations' all you like. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
So you see, you have fallen into the same trap as many people you complain about, you are given some power and you abused that power to it's greatest extent, (then you ask for more power).
It's that abuse of the "report" button that makes you censors and abusers of censorship. It's your defence of that abuse that is distasteful, especially here on TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's censorship because
Don't you think you're blowing this out of proportion a bit? The comments are easily read with the click of a link. That doesn't really sound like abusing power to its greatest extent. Yes, there are some comments that shouldn't be hidden, but really I think almost all of them are off topic at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's censorship because
Not at all, I don't, simply because of WHY these people choose to censor comment..
They have said the same, 'we only 'report' comments of things we don't like. Not because of bad language, or anything else. "BECAUSE THEY DONT LIKE IT"..
They have a power and ability to censor, they abuse that ability to stifle comment they do not agree with.
That is the very definition of censorship. And Masnick condones and allows it.
It's censorship by Masnicks definition, yet it's his web site that engages in it..
This web site in controversial, it often makes statements that are not true or accurate, as such he should not try to censor people who call him out for these statements.
If you are not willing to enter a debate on the issue, then don't start to talk about it.
But if you do want to make untrue statements then, at least have the standing to defend your claims.
Censoring dissenting posts, is not 'connecting with fans' or promoting debate about a subject, it becomes a DICTATOR, dictating his manifesto, and not allowing any reasoned debate or comment.
It's censorship, and censorship of the very worst kind.
It's also a massive embarrassment to masnick, who portrays himself as a shining light for these basic freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's censorship because
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's censorship because
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's censorship because
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So lots of people know about it, and are downloading it.
if New Zealand censors hadn't been so squeamish and actually allowed the movie to play in the country, the filmmakers would actually be making money. Instead, they get none of it.
There you have it, from Masnick, being popular and being downloaded means NO MONEY FOR THE MAKERS of the content...
He's right, illegally downloading movies DOES NOT make profit for the makers of the movie you are stealing..
We know masnick has made the opposite claim many times, at least now we get the truth from him..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you apply 2 seconds of thought, you'd realise that the reason people are not making money in NZ is NOT due to the piracy. It's because all LEGAL distribution of the title has been blocked.
Let that settle into your thick skull for a moment. It's not the piracy that's losing money, it's the fact that there is NO way for a Kiwi to PAY MONEY for the content, so they have to go the illegal route. If they were allowed to pay for it, they would, and the market for the movie is clear. People are simply not allowed to pay for it.
In other words, the exact opposite of what your tiny brain thinks is being said. The point is, you can't block people from seeing the film in the way they wish, so people would make more money if they were actually able to pay for it instead of being forced down the pirate route. This is 100% consistent with the points made regularly here, although admittedly you're usually too obsessed and/or stupid to understand the actual points discussed rather than the strange strawmen you tend to construct in place of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Masnick simply stated something obvious and known to everyone, I was simply amused because masnick often takes the opposite stance.
If someone can get something for free, they will not pay for it, in this case not being available in the flicks makes little difference.
Downloads equate to NO PROFIT for makers, that's what masnick said, I agree..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An easily disproven lie, but go on...
"in this case not being available in the flicks makes little difference."
It makes no difference to sales that people are literally not allowed to pay for it through legal channels? I suppose this makes sense in that weird head of yours, but not anywhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, I just wanted to note that this is INEVITABLE. The original Maniac was banned in the UK as part of the whole video nasties debacle. That just led to it becoming a popular pirated VHS during the 80s and 90s, as did all of the films on the DPP's lists.
Guess what? If the UK couldn't block a film's underground distribution on bulky, slow to copy VHS tapes, NZ haven't a hope in hell today. Horror fans are always seeking out new experiences and pushing at extremes. If you tell them they can't watch something, you can damn well guarantee that the movie in question will be the first thing they'll seek out next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]