Michael Moore Admits He Doesn't Care About International Downloads, But He Has To Pretend To

from the download-away dept

We were a bit surprised recently when the news came out that lawyers representing Michael Moore were making the rounds concerning international downloads of his latest documentary, Slacker Uprising. Moore had decided to give the movie away free online, and given his past statements about having no problem with folks sharing a movie online, it seemed out of place to complain about any sharing that didn't just happen in the US and Canada.

Now it appears that Moore himself has taken the initiative to explain, and the answer is effectively that he doesn't care -- but he has to pretend to, because he only holds the rights for the US and Canada. In a note to the site TorrentFreak, he wrote:

"What do you think I'm up to? I know it may not be obvious to most, but I think you guys get it. I only own the US and Canadian rights. So my hands are tied. But this is the 21st century. What are 'geographical rights'?"

He then went on to point to the silliness of trying to prevent fans from sharing a movie:

"I'll say it for the hundredth time: If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?"

I'm not always a fan of his movies (though I do find them entertaining), but it's nice to see another moviemaker recognizing how counterproductive it is to try to stop file sharing, when embracing it has many more benefits.

Filed Under: bittorrent, borders, distribution, free, jurisdiction, michael moore, movies

Using Free In A Business Model More Than Just Waiting For A Business Model To Show Up

from the this-again? dept

Charles Cooper, over at News.com, has a long history of being quite skeptical of business models involving the use of "free" and, at times, likes to poke fun at us who believe such models are a key part of the economy and innovation. This might be seen as particularly ironic, since Cooper works for a company that gives away most of its content for "free" and makes money via the business model of advertising. That said, he's got a thought provoking piece asking if the current financial crisis will spell doom for the "freemium" model, which is one of many "free" models.

It's a good question, but I think the analysis is a little bit off. First, he narrowly (and, I believe, incorrectly) seems to define Freemium as offering a free version now with the idea of offering a premium version later. But that's not what most freemium models do. They tend to offer both a lower level free version, and, at the same time, a more advanced premium version. While those models can be risky if they are trying to offer other infinite goods in the premium version, many premium offerings actually focus on scarce goods (bandwidth, server time, support, etc.).

Second, Cooper's thesis seems to be that the "Freemium" model is really about giving things away and then praying that a business model shows up. While this may be true for some (poorly thought out) businesses, it's not necessarily true across the board. Plenty of businesses start out by recognizing they need to grow attention first, before that can be turned into a business model, but that's different than using a "give it away and pray" business model.

Finally, Cooper seems to assume that most VCs won't take the long term view on the companies they invest in. Again, that may be true in some cases, among weaker VCs. But good VCs are actually more likely to see the value in doubling down and building up core business during any expected downturn. In the end, Cooper's attack seems like a random attack on "free," based on a few faulty premises not backed up by what's actually happened in the market.

Filed Under: business models, free, freemium

Michael Moore's Lawyers Think They Can Limit BitTorrent To Just US And Canada

from the the-internet-doesn't-have-borders dept

It's always amusing when people seem to think that geographic borders actually apply to the internet. We recently wrote about Michael Moore's plan to freely distribute his latest movie online, which supported Moore's earlier statements saying the greater the number of people who see his movies (for free or not), the better off he is. However, when the movie was finally released online, and users were told to share it, some were reasonably surprised that Moore said it should only be shared in the US and Canada. Of course, once people are distributing it online, national borders are somewhat meaningless. And it seems next to impossible to figure out a way to ask people to share the movie, distributing it via torrent sites... but say that it should only be shared within the US and Canada.

However, it appears that Michael Moore's lawyers are now trying to do the impossible. Michael Geist points us to a website that received a DMCA takedown notice for sharing the movie outside the US and Canada. In fact, the lawyers were confused, and the website they sent the takedown to was merely a DNS service, not the webhost, but it appears the lawyers will continue the rather ridiculous task of trying to take down any torrents of the movie outside the US or Canada.

Filed Under: bittorrent, borders, distribution, free, jurisdiction, michael moore, movies

Hugh Cornwell Is Still Not A Taxi Driver; Musician Learns To Embrace Free

from the good-for-him dept

Jean Savoye, a reader here at Techdirt, sent in a submission using the provocative title that "Hugh Cornwell Is Still Not A Taxi Driver," and wrote about how former Stranglers' frontman, Hugh Cornwell, appeared to be embracing some of the concepts we talk about here as a business model. On his official website, he's offering up his latest album as a completely free download. However, he's pairing that with a much more complete business model. Like Trent Reznor, Cornwell is also offering a few different options for those who want tangible (scarce) goods as well -- such as a CD, DVD or vinyl.

But Cornwell seems to be going even further in recognizing the power of selling scarcities. The DVD mentioned above is actually a film showing much of the recording process that went into the album. However, the film itself was also shown in some theaters -- with Cornwell attending each of the showings and doing a Q&A session at the end of each one. In other words, he's recognized yet another important "scarcity": access to the artists and (once again) that means much more than touring, as seen here.

As for the title of the post? Well, back in 2001, Cornwell was doing an interview with a website, and the interviewer showed him Napster and explained it to Cornwell. While Cornwell didn't react totally negatively (he seemed to think it was cool for rare or live tracks), he was very much against his studio recorded songs being up there:

I cannot condone the posting of music that I spent money making, being given away for free.... When I see that my new album has been posted, and everyone can get that for free, if that carries on I'm going to go out of business.... Napster is good in some ways, but if maybe just one track was posted from a commercial record, as a taster, because I know a lot of people who go to Napster are real fans who want the original artwork, want the real article, and are not happy having something that's downloaded. But then there are other people who are getting it for free, they are not giving me anything, and there has to be some sort of royalty paid or I'll have to become a cab driver.

Well, seven years later, Cornwell is posting his own music, and having it given away for free -- and he hasn't gone out of business or become a cab driver. He's figured out a business model that takes advantage of that free sharing of his music. Always nice to see musicians progressing along that curve.

Filed Under: business models, free, hugh cornwell, music, stranglers

MySpace's Music Offering: Ignoring The Elephant In The Room

from the good-luck dept

MySpace has been prepping its own music offering for quite some time, and Fortune reveals the basic details. They're somewhat... underwhelming. It's basically a scaled up version of that UK startup we wrote about last week, where we noted that you don't beat piracy by being more annoying. Basically, MySpace will let people post streamable music on their sites, and will then sell ads against the music, as well as link to sites like iTunes and Amazon for people who want to actually buy the tracks.

There's nothing wrong with the idea. But, it's unlikely to make much of a difference in the market. To say, as Fortune does, that this "promises to be the most significant rollout of a digital-music service since Apple's iTunes" is either hyperbole or (more likely) a statement on how awful other music services have been in the interim. Yet, it also ignores the elephant in the room (as does the MySpace store) which is that it only focuses on one reason why people download unauthorized music: the free part. Yes, MySpace music will be free. But will it also match the other reasons why people like file sharing systems? The convenience? The fact that it's unencumbered with annoying ads or DRM? The aspect of sharing and helping to promote other artists?

MySpace's offering will have some of that, but there's no downloading. People will be able to create playlists and share them, but that doesn't seem all that different than, say, iMeem. As if to prove that no one involved in this project wants to mention the elephant of file sharing, check out this quote from Luke Wood, executive VP of Universal's Interscope Geffen A&M record label:

"This is how people discover music now. It's not happening through people reading Rolling Stone. It's not happening through the radio. It's happening through social networks online."

Is it really that difficult for folks in the industry to at least admit that many, many people discover new music through file sharing? They don't have to say that it's okay or that it's legal. But if they're going to come up with something that really competes, they should at least be willing to admit what's really happening in the marketplace. This is not to knock MySpace and the labels for trying something different. It's great that they're trying -- but pretending that file sharing doesn't exist isn't how you respond to the market threat. Without being willing to even mention the elephant, it's hard to believe that the response is going to be able to compete with the elephant.

Filed Under: advertising, file sharing, free, music, social networks
Companies: myspace

Marillion Takes The Next Step And Gives Music Away For Free

from the excellent dept

Last month, we wrote about the band Marillion, noting that for many years they had adopted one of the business models that we've advocated: getting fans to pay upfront for the creation of albums by giving them something worthwhile -- and it's worked wonders for the band. Over the years, they had built up a huge mailing list of fans, and used that list to help generate plenty of revenue to produce new albums. However, we did note that it was a little disappointing that the band didn't take it to the final level of making the actual music free, to help generate a bigger mailing list of more fans enabling the band to make even more money.

I doubt that we had anything to do with it, but just weeks later, that's exactly what the band is doing. It's giving away its latest album for free (I'm not sure, but I'm assuming it was produced in the same manner, meaning that it's already been "paid" for). And the band is planning to use the free music to try to continue to build up that fan list, that it can continue to promote its scarce goods to. Hopefully it works out for them. They seem to have combined many of the different elements: getting people to pay for scarcities (new music, CDs with extras, concerts, fan club memberships that provide benefits, merchandise, etc.) and cultivating "true fans" and now using the music to build up that list. My only tiny (tiny!) critique is that if I were them, along with the free music, I might offer different "levels" of potential support, a la Jill Sobule, Kristin Hersh and Trent Reznor. Either way, it's great to see another example of a band embracing where the market is heading.

Filed Under: business models, free, marillion, music

Convenience Matters: People Will Still 'Pirate' Content That Is Available For Free In Less Convenient Packages

from the stating-the-obvious dept

About a year ago, some commentators were positively shocked that tons of folks still got the latest Radiohead album via BitTorrent rather than the band's own pay-what-you-want site, which allowed people to get the music for free. However, the real point (which many seemed to miss) is that the reason people will often access the content via unauthorized sources isn't just because it's free, but because it's more convenient and doesn't require leaping over annoying hurdles. Plus, for many, it's a single interface and a single source for all the content they want.

So, it should come as no surprise at all that plenty of folks are still downloading unauthorized versions of TV shows that are available in authorized streams for free. First off, downloading the content lets users watch the content when and where they want -- and allows them to archive it or watch it on other devices. Second, it's just a lot more convenient for many users to get the content that way.

Once again, it looks like the entertainment industry got hung up on that whole "free" bit, when that's hardly all there is to the equation. Just because they put something up for free doesn't mean they've effectively competed with the alternatives. When the alternatives offer more and better "features" and much greater convenience, the "free" part is only one of multiple selling points. Simply putting content up for free without matching those other features means that plenty of folks are still going to get the content elsewhere. Rather than fighting it, it's about time companies learned ways to use this to their own advantage.

Filed Under: authorized, convenience, free, piracy

Michael Moore Embraces Free Distribution Of Latest Movie

from the and-another-one dept

No matter what you think of controversial film maker Michael Moore (and I'll admit that I'm not a fan -- I think he's entertaining, but plays way too loose with the facts, even on issues where I might agree with him), over the years this been this odd compulsion by pro-copyright folks to pigeonhole Moore as being against anyone sharing his films online -- despite the fact he's clearly stated he has no problem with people file sharing his movies if it means more people see them. Yet, as we've pointed out, others have claimed that Moore's worst "nightmare" came true when one of his movies was leaked online, despite the fact that the leak helped get it more attention (just as Moore wanted) making the movie quite profitable. Then there was the "legal group" that used one of Moore's films as an example of filmmakers hurt by file sharing -- again ignoring Moore's stated appreciation of fans sharing his movies.

Well, now he's making his stance even clearer. He's releasing his latest movie for free online, though, oddly it will only be officially available that way for three weeks (though, I'm sure by then it will be widely available in unauthorized forms as well). As of right now, it's a little unclear if the movie will be available for actual download or just streaming, though the website for the movie itself, called Slacker Uprising says that it will be a download. I think he's being a bit disingenuous in claiming that he's not planning to profit from the release, as he's also offering a DVD for sale, which will likely do quite well. Either way, perhaps now folks will stop using the leaks of his movies as evidence that he's against free distribution of his movies.

Filed Under: distribution, free, michael moore, movies

Nebraska Forces City To Stop Advertising Free WiFi

from the how-dare-they! dept

I'm actually on a road trip across the US this week, still working along the way with a mix of EVDO and WiFi. I'm writing this post while connected to some WiFi in Cheyenne, Wyoming (nice town) and I'll be on my way into Nebraska shortly. That's why this story caught my eye: apparently the small town of Louisville, Nebraska has set up a free WiFi zone in their downtown and smartly decided to advertise that fact on the main highway that runs by the town. Yet, the State of Nebraska Roads Department has forced them to take down the sign, worried that other towns across the state might also demand that the state put up signs advertising free WiFi. Considering that the signs in Louisville weren't installed by the Roads Department in the first place, this seems like a totally misplaced worry. If other cities demand such signs, why not just tell them to put up their own signs if they want to? I might just have to swing by Louisville myself and post something using their WiFi.

Filed Under: free, louisville, nebraska, wifi

Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid

from the follow-the-money dept

One of the problems we often run into whenever we write about economics involving "free" is that someone inevitably posts a comment saying something to the effect of "but if content creators can't make any money, they won't create content." The problem is in jumping to the conclusion that "free" to the user/reader/listener/watcher means that the content creator isn't getting paid. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, most of the business models we talk about concerning embracing such "free" things points to ways that the content creators can make more money, while still allowing the consumption for free. Reader thepi points us to a blog post by author John Scalzi, who has long been a proponent of free e-books, where he explains that free to the reader doesn't mean unpaid to the author. It just means that the business model is slightly different; the money is coming from somewhere else other than the reader. For some, this may seem obvious -- but it's clearly a point of confusion that we run into frequently, so it's great that Scalzi is highlighting it.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, ebooks, economics, free, john scalzi, paid