Studio To Amazon Instant Video Customer: Thanks For The $$$. Enjoy Your Blank Screen.

from the watched-any-good-LICENSES-lately? dept

The best way to combat piracy is to offer content at a reasonable price, make it easily accessible and hamper it with as few limitations as possible. Very, very slowly, the major studios are coming around to this line of thinking. A few tentative (and pretty much awful) steps have been taken, but it seems that for every minute, baby step forward, the motion picture industry staggers several steps back.

Case in point: Amazon's Instant Video service, which has "over 100,000 top movies and TV shows to rent or buy." This includes many new releases, and the purchaser can stream the movie indefinitely and at any time to compatible devices. The purchaser also has the option to download the movie to a PC or Kindle Fire for viewing without an internet connection.

It all sounds like a pretty good deal, until you realize that the words "indefinitely" and "any time" mean something completely different to the studios.

Consumerist reader Rebecca found this out the hard way, when she purchased Puss In Boots for $14.99 from Amazon, believing that, per Amazon’s marketing, she would be able to watch the movie when she wanted and for as many times as she wanted.

And all was going well for a few weeks until Rebecca went to stream Puss In Boots and instead saw a message stating that the film was no longer available for viewing.

As Rebecca found out, "any time" means "any time the studio is not currently milking every last dollar out of its latest release by shuffling it in and out of rental, PPV and premium cable windows." Why these windows should matter to someone who has already paid for the movie is beyond me. After all, the purchaser should be able to set his or her own "window," starting from the point they paid for the movie and going forward.

Amazon's marketing seems to agree with this customer-friendly "any time window." But once something like this happens, the real details come out. Rebecca contacted Amazon for some clarification on this bullshit "anomaly" and received this:

Due to licensing restrictions, videos can become temporarily unavailable for viewing or downloading. The video will automatically be made available again once that restriction ends.

Availability of videos for purchase, re-download, or access from a backup copy is determined by the owners of the content. On very rare occasions, a video you previously purchased may become unavailable.

Well, that's kind of crap. The video you "previously purchased" may become "unavailable" at the whims of "THE OWNERS OF THE CONTENT." No doubt wrinkles of incomprehension form on the brows of studio and label execs when customers make bizarre claims of "ownership" after purchasing movies and music. According to the execs, they only "licensed" the content to you (with all the billions of lousy stipulations that transaction entails). [Unless you're Eminem and demanding to be paid larger "license" royalties. In this specific case, you were sold actual songs.]

While this studio chicanery is nothing new, especially when it comes to digital goods, Amazon isn't helping matters by burying the exceptions and limitations that come with purchasing "indefinite" access. The licensing restrictions Rebecca had detailed for her by Amazon appear nowhere on the purchase pages. In fact, the "Amazon Instant Video Usage Rules" page carries none of this information either. Instead, it gives you this phrase and link:

Viewing Period: Indefinite — you may watch and re-watch your purchased videos as often as you want and as long as you want (subject to the limitations described in the Amazon Instant Video Terms of Use).

The TOS link brings you to a less-than-helpful wall of text, leaving the purchaser to scroll up and down before finding the pertinent information that explains exactly why something they purchased is unavailable.

Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming. You may download and store your own copy of Purchased Digital Content on a Compatible Device authorized for such download so that you can view that Purchased Digital Content if it becomes unavailable for further download or streaming from the Service.

Nice, huh? For any reason, your purchase may be limited, unavailable or removed completely by the "content provider." Amazon suggests (when it's done letting you know that "hey, not our fault") that the purchaser download and store their own copies to avoid being locked out of their purchases by the content providers. Well, thanks for the suggestion, Amazon, but even that half-assed "workaround" is useless thanks to the fact that the content provider can also make purchases "unavailable for further download." It's not as if Dreamworks is going to send an email blast letting customers know that their purchased streams are about to vanish thanks to a six-week run on pay-per-view. And the studios certainly aren't going to tell customers "Download now because we're yanking that movie from Amazon completely." Everyone involved would just rather the problem be dealt with when the angry emails start pouring in, if at all.

Now, Rebecca obviously prefers streaming, so getting shafted by the studios probably isn't going to drive her to massive torrenting. What it may do, however, is send her towards streaming services like Amazon Prime or Netflix. Because of its shortsighted urge to drain every last penny out of "Puss in Boots," Dreamworks seems willing to sacrifice actual "digital dollars" from Amazon Instant Video for the "digital dimes" of other streaming services. Of course, if the studio already has your $14.99, it's probably not very concerned about how satisfied you are with the spotty availability of your purchased movie license. It's not like Rebecca can return it. All she can do is wait for Dreamworks to reopen her (prepaid) window.

Streaming is becoming the preferred option for movies and music and Hollywood seems to be willing to fight it every step of the way. It's sad and it's ugly. The industry has crippled Hulu and Netflix (while offering nothing comparable of their own) and now seems ready and willing to kick Amazon and its customers around for as long as it can get away with it. It's one thing to play stupid games with content when customers are playing a flat rate for "all you can watch." It's quite another to yank content away from customers who have paid directly for a title at prices that rival a physical DVD purchase. That's not a "business model." That's abusing your customers for fun and profit.

Filed Under: digital content, movies, purchases, rentals, restrictions
Companies: amazon

Shockingly, Kickstarter Doesn't Work For Every Movie (Psst: Neither Does The Old System)

from the pointless-articles dept

Internet contrarian Evgeny Morozov has built something of a career out of being the online curmudgeon du jour when it comes to being skeptical about those who see benefits and opportunity on the internet today. So it comes as little surprise that he's now turned his "hype deflater ray" on Kickstarter, in an article for Slate that tries to bash Kickstarter for not funding every possible movie. I'm not joking. That's about the extent of the critique. He cites a study that finds that certain types of movies do well on Kickstarter (and other similar platforms), while others don't. Uh. Yeah.

...this revolution has a few mitigating circumstances. First, Kickstarter might produce many new documentaries, but the odds are that those documentaries will be of a very particular kind (this critique also applies to other sites in this field like indiegogo.com, sponsume.com, crowdfunder.co.uk, pledgie.com). They are likely to be campaign and issue-driven films in the tradition of Super Size Me or An Inconvenient Truth. Their directors seek social change and tap into an online public that shares the documentary's activist agenda. A documentary exploring the causes of World War I probably stands to receive less—if any—online funding than a documentary exploring the causes of climate change.

I see. And does the "old" system of Hollywood regularly make documentaries exploring the causes of World War I? I'm really not sure I understand how this is a criticism at all. Unless a platform can fund any and all types of movies, it's not really that big of a deal? Under those conditions, nothing is particularly good. Basically, what this paragraph seems to argue is that, "gee, Kickstarter is good at funding projects that lots of people want to see, but not so good at funding projects that people aren't as interested in." I'm not sure that's a critique. It seems to be the purpose of the site itself.

Second, some films require significant startup costs (think drama-documentaries or history movies) or involve considerable legal risks that may be hard to price and account for. Say you are making a film that includes an undercover investigation of the oil industry. When you have the BBC's lawyers backing you up, you'll probably take many more risks than when you are relying on crowdfunding. But if Kickstarter is your platform of choice, you'll probably forgo venturing into the thorny legal issues altogether.

I'm curious to know if there's any actual evidence to support this argument. One could just as easily claim that when your project has the backing of a big corporation with liability-averse lawyers, you're a lot less likely to be allowed to take risks, than when you rely on crowdfunding. I don't know which is true (though having spent too much time around movie industry lawyers, I'm pretty sure my statement is a hell of a lot more accurate than Morozov's), but where is the actual data to support this bizarre claim?

There are further complaints that seem equally silly. For example, Morozov points out that someone raised money on Kickstarter to help get his film on physical screens in movie theaters -- and that's somehow proof that Kickstarter isn't that special, since the "old" way of showing a movie is still involved. I'm at a loss as to how any of this is mutually exclusive. There is nothing inherent to Kickstarter that says if you use it, you can only do things online. What's wrong with using it to show a film in theaters?

All in all, this seems a lot like Morozov set up what he thinks Kickstarter should be about -- and then knocked that down. In the logical fallacy world, that's known as a strawman.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, documentaries, movies, popularity
Companies: kickstarter

B-Movie Legends Troma Entertainment Releases 150 Films On YouTube

from the watch-and-enjoy dept

Troma Entertainment is a giant in the B-movie world, creating and releasing tons of movies, including its most famous film, The Toxic Avenger. Company founder and film director Lloyd Kaufman (who has written a guest post for us in the past), recently alerted us to the fact that Troma has recently released 150 of its movies for free on YouTube, including some older films which they just distribute.

So, if you want to watch the 1952 classic, Abbot and Costello: Jack and the Beanstalk, or Bela Lugosi in The Corpse Vanishes or The Invisible Ghost you can. Or you can go for more modern fare like Zombie Werewolves Attack! and Blood, Boobs & Beast... starring JJ Abrams (in case you're wondering, that's actually a documentary about Don Dohler, another B-movie creator).

And because I can, I'll embed that last one here: Kaufman has shown himself to be a filmmaker who truly understands how the internet can help him, rather than be something worth fearing, so it's great to see him fully embrace a platform like YouTube to distribute his flicks, and to not freak out about the fact that people can watch stuff for free (actually, to encourage people to watch stuff for free).

Filed Under: b-mobies, free, free movies, internet, lloyd kaufman, movies
Companies: troma entertainment

MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'

from the and-that's-why-they're-such-failures dept

We recently wrote about David Pogue's article highlighting how the movie industry's failure to embrace what technology allows is a huge cause of infringement, and the industry still doesn't seem to get that. In response, in typically tone deaf fashion, MPAA spokesperson Howard Gantman has taken the usual tack of not actually addressing what Pogue wrote, but making an unrelated argument. He says that somehow, magically, because there are more crippled, annoying, expensive, incomplete movie services out there, no one should complain. You see, in the MPAA's world "offering something" is proof that they're innovating, even if it's not what people want.

But this shows a rather remarkable lack of awareness of what customers seem to be saying. They're saying they don't want services that only let you watch a movie for 24-hours. They're saying that they don't want movies that cost ridiculous prices. They want reasonable access at reasonable prices -- and the reasons some people aren't flocking to some of these services isn't that they're evil "thieves," but that they don't find those new offerings compelling. The proper response is to make them more compelling. But, apparently, in the world of the MPAA, the response is to berate and guilt people for not using their crappy offerings.

Filed Under: customers, movies, online
Companies: mpaa

Making Movies 20 Years Ago vs. Today: A World Of Difference

from the two-podcasts dept

I recently listened to two very (very) different podcasts, but which really highlighted something kind of amazing: it's so much easier to make a movie today. We're talking a completely different world. Of course, most of us knew that already, and it's why we see things like many more movies being made today than ever before in the past. But between these two podcasts, what's driven home is how much the old system relied on gatekeepers, and how little the new system needs such gatekeepers.

The first podcast was a recent episode of Kevin Smith & Scott Mosier's Smodcast, in which Smith digs (deep) into his archives to find a ton of old voicemail recordings that give you a taste of the process of making his original film, Clerks and actually getting it picked up and shown in theaters (it comes after the discussion of the war against sharks at the beginning, which is entertaining too...). At first I just thought it was kind of awesome to get that kind of behind-the-scenes look (or, listen) to all the people that had to "appreciate" Clerks before it was picked up by Miramax and became that indie film classic it shall forever remain. It's amazing to listen to all of those voicemails and go back 20 years and learn about what happened. But there are all sorts of people who have to get involved and become boosters of the film. Smith and Mosier were lucky that one influential guy caught the movie at their original showing in NY, and then he helped get a writeup by an influential reporter, who helped get others interested in the film, but each step of the way, a champion had to say "hey, you should send a tape to so-and-so."

But then I thought about just how different the world is today. While people can go through gatekeepers, we see an entire new generation of filmmakers (and other content creators) who don't need to hope that someone influential catches the flick in its only theater showing. They don't have to find "the" guy who sold indie films to studios. They don't have to find "the" reporter who writes about indie films. Yes, some of those things can help, but they can now use sites like YouTube and Vimeo to post the work (or snippets of it) online for free. They can use social media to build a following. They can use Kickstarter and TopSpin and other tools to make money. It's an entirely different world.

And that point was driven home when I listened to the very next podcast in my playlist, from Alec Baldwin's Here's the Thing podcast, in which he interviews two documentary filmmakers who basically made (controversial) films on effectively no budget at all. While the types of movies are quite different from Clerks, listening to the two podcasts, one after the other, you realize that the documentary filmmakers probably wouldn't even have attempted to make those films two decades ago.

It's an amazing new world for creative arts, with tremendous new opportunity. Those who are complaining that things are worse these days seem to be living in an alternate reality. If things are "worse," it's only because there may be more competition for attention -- which is a real challenge. But there's so much more opportunity and so many fewer gatekeepers needed, that it's difficult not to be excited for the kinds of creativity we're seeing today and will inevitably see in the future.

Filed Under: alec baldwin, clerks, documentaris, history, kevin smith, movie making, movies

Netflix Provides 'Knock-offs' After Contract With Disney Ends

from the filling-the-void dept

We recently talked about the steady progression of cable cord-cutting occuring in this country. As that trend progresses, we're also seeing constant friction from the major movie studios about how they think they're offering enough in the way of online access to entertainment, so won't we all just shut up about it? And the truth is consumers will shut up about it, but not because they appreciate the studios' almost-effort at providing the product customers want how they want it (also known as being good at business), but because one way or another they will be satisfied. Often times these stories devolve into tales of piracy and woe, but that's far from the only option people have.

Forbes has a story of how those folks with both youngens and a Netflix account at home are dealing with Disney and Pixar electing to not renew the streaming portion of their contract.

Since the contract between Disney and Netflix came to an end, you won’t find any Pixar films on the Netflix streaming website. For a while you could watch Toy Story 3 and some other good Pixar titles but alas, those days have come to an end.

On the other hand, you can watch a host of Disney and Pixar knock-offs, as well as some really blatant rip-offs of DreamWorks movies.

Keep the terms "knock-offs," "rip-offs, " and "blatant" in your head, because we'll be coming back to them later. But, to demonstrate the point, here are some examples of what the movie industry likes to call "drafting films", a nod to a race car technique in which one sits behind a car to alleviate headwind and save fuel: I'll have to plead ignorance here, or perhaps plead lack-of-children, because I haven't heard of this one. But there are more obvious examples, like: And: Now, perhaps, like me, you're wondering what the legal status of these types of "drafting" movies is.  A couple of things should be noted here. First, as you can see, in the summary descriptions of these movies, they tend to flatout tell you that they aren't affiliated with the movie by which they're "inspired." Some, like the linked Forbes article, call this an admission rather than a warning, but this is another nugget to keep in the back of your head for further down the post. Secondly, the plot and characters in these "drafting" films have zero correlation to the movies they're "drafting". There's no copying of plot or characters. As the Forbes piece states:

To be fair, the movie looks (both graphically and plot-wise) nothing at all like Pixar’s fantasy. Indeed, one suspects it was produced as soon as the first trailers came out.

On top of that, the most recent litigation cited by the article ended up finding against Disney and for the film studio accused of "drafting".

Disney lost a lawsuit claiming that Good Times Entertainment had been packaging its videos – this time specifically its version of “Aladdin” – to resemble Disney’s own films, and that this caused confusion among consumers. Good Times Entertainment had released its own versions of “Aladdin” and “Beauty and the Beast” among other popular Disney films.

Judge Miriam Goldman Cederbaum ruled against Disney, arguing that a resemblance simply wasn’t enough unless all of Disney’s own packaging was distinctly uniform. In other words, unless each Disney film was packaged in a very specific way and that style was copied by Good Times Entertainment, Disney didn’t have enough proof to build its case.

So, in case you weren't playing along at home, we have "drafting" films filling the void for consumers in the Netflix streaming service, these films do not reproduce any semblance of core plot or character devices, and the court has previously ruled that without copying the packaging the "drafters" are in the clear. On top of that, the summary descriptions of these knock-off movies tell you flat out that if you're looking for the feature film from a studio like Disney you're in the wrong place. 

Remember all those tidbits I asked you to keep in mind? How these movies were "blatant knock-offs"? How including a non-association disclaimer in the summary was "an admission" that the film's marketing had been inspired by the feature film? Because, with that in mind, here's the conclusion the Forbes piece reaches:

And while the law may be on its side, there’s something unsettling about all these drafted films. Is it ethical to market your product in a way purposefully designed to confuse consumers?

Forgive me, but that's just completely wrong. You can't call something a "blatant knock-off" in one breath and worry about customer confusion in the other. Particularly when the first line in most of these films' summaries inform people to avoid such confusion. Indeed, many of the films in question are built off of Public Domain material, which often times might eliminate any need for such a disclaimer. As Joe Cayre, former President of Good Times Entertainment, an alleged "drafting" film studio, says:

“If [Disney] spent so much money to create a big to-do, what better time to put [Good Times' Aladdin] out? And it being a public-domain vehicle, there’s nothing wrong with that.”

I'd suggest the major studios dive back into streaming and compete with these "drafting" films rather than attempt any further litigation. Because customers are going to get some flavor of what they want. And, if the movie trailers are any indication, and if given a level choice, they'll pick the major studio's product most of the time for reasons of quality and brand. If they have a choice.

Filed Under: confusion, customer service, drafting, knockoffs, movies
Companies: good times entertainment, netflix

Indian Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap: 'Piracy Helps Deliver The Filmmaker's Message To The Masses'

from the Kashyap-has-never-seen-a-half-empty-glass-in-his-life dept

There have been plenty of artists inside and outside the system recognizing that, yeah, it sucks to not get paid for every copy of your work, but on the bright side, at least people are watching/listening/reading. Hit children's book Go The F**k to Sleep built buzz with unpaid copies roaming the internet. A former WB record exec claims "File sharing leads to more sales." Canadian rap star Drake leaking tracks all over the internet to get fans listening and talking. Why? Because the more people you can expose to your art, the better. But if you ask Hollywood about file sharing you get the alphabet in response: SOPA, PIPA, E-PARASITE, TPP, ACTA. Piracy is killing the motion picture industry, full stop.

Contrast that with this statement from Indian filmmaker Anurag Kashyap, who works in a country where piracy is omnipresent, rather than just an over-inflated set of numbers to wave at easily impressed Congressmen:

While chatting about his experiences in Kanpur, where he's spent some part of his life while he was studying for the IIT entrance test, the topic veers to the menace of piracy in Indian cinema. But surprisingly, Anurag is one of the few filmmakers who feel that piracy is justified. "Main aaj jo kuch hoon, piracy ki wajah se hi hoon. It was through pirated versions of my movies that people got to see my work," he says and goes on to elaborate, "I feel that cinema is something that should reach the maximum number of people. If the audience does not get to see affordable cinema, it will turn to cheaper, pirated entertainment."

Unlike the hysteria we're used to, often conflated with knockoff fire extinguishers and child pornography, Anurag views piracy as more than simply a necessary evil, but an actual necessity. That is, if your aim is to have your work seen by as many people as possible. Obviously, if your aim instead is to do everything in your power to make sure that every set of eyeballs that come in contact with your work have paid upfront, then you'll take a much dimmer view of file sharing.

Anurag's not done yet, either:

"If we want to see a successful Hollywood today, often we have to take the help of piracy because it's not necessary that that film is legally available in your city. That's why filmmakers need to understand that their work should reach more and more people, because today cinema is not all about entertainment. In fact, I feel that we filmmakers should use cinema as a tool to make a strong impact on society. And if people are watching such meaningful cinema through piracy, I believe it only helps to deliver the filmmaker's message to the masses."

All very good points. First and foremost: sometimes you don't have a legal option because of licensing issues, regional blocking, "you people are all pirates," GEMA wants its cut, etc. But beyond the logistics is the fact that if you're an artist and you want to have an impact on people, it behooves you to get your creations in front of as many people as possible.

Here's a filmmaker working in a country where piracy is an absolute given, so much so that the government has taken some very surprising steps in an effort to curb it, including blocking file lockers and video sites at the ISP level. And yet, despite massive infringement, all he sees is the upside. He's doing this for a living and yet he's not loudly wondering where his boom mike operator will get his next meal or saying something asinine about a future full of cat videos, all the while attempting to recast record box office receipts as the Fifth Horseman of the Creative Apocalypse.

And before you write off Kashyap as just some dude you've never heard of from somewhere else, here's a brief recap of his work (via the Wiki):

As a filmmaker, he is known for Black Friday (2004), a controversial and award-winning Hindi film about the 1993 Bombay bombings, followed by No Smoking (2007), Dev D (2009) Gulaal (2009) That Girl in Yellow Boots (2011) and Gangs of Wasseypur (2012).

As a screenwriter, he wrote the scripts for the Filmfare Award-winning Satya (1998) and the Academy Award-nominated Canadian film Water (2005).

In 1999, Kashyap won the Best Screenplay award for Satya at the Star Screen Awards. The next year, his short film Last Train to Mahakali won the Special Jury Award at the same awards. His feature film debut Black Friday won the Grand Jury Prize at the 3rd Annual Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles (2005), and was a nominee for the "Golden Leopard" (Best Film) at the 57th Locarno International Film Festival (2004).

He was listed on the The DNA power list: Top 50 influentials, a list of 50 most influential Indians in 2011. Kashyap currently serves on the board of Mumbai-based NGO, Aangan Trust, which helps protect vulnerable children around India.

It seems that those who value their own work as art over commerce are the ones who see how file sharing can pay dividends in the long run. Those who tend to view their work as a P&L sheet can only see the negative. You don't have to like or condone piracy to see the possible upside. Kashyap almost seems to view it as a distribution system that reaches places he can't, free of charge. Hollywood, however, seems to be too busy playing the victim to draw that same conclusion.

Filed Under: anurag kashyap, india, marketing, movies, piracy