dvd distribution via download?

Hey filmmakers :)

Alright, I have a little problemo that needs a bit of attention.

You see, I'm planning on selling my work (dvd's should I call them?) via download. So I have a few questions regarding the matter:

1. Is there anything special I should know about anti-piracy? Is it different?
2. What software is good for downloadable content? (anti-piracy)

Thanks in advance! :)
 
I do have more to say, specifically to address Joe Citizen, I'm in general agreement on some terms, but I have to go shoot and then I have a meeting later tonight, to further monetize films we've already given for free. Sorry for seeming combative. Analyzing all this is morbidly interesting to me, on a moral level as well as a professional level, as yes, I am attempting to make a living at this, just not at the expense of people feeling ripped off or walking out of our movie not knowing what they're getting into. That's my overall theme. Don't mean to offend, although I'm sure I come off as an asshole, that's my sarcastic ability to alienate anyone. Shit, they're yelling at me. I really gotta go. My movie will be 100% finished with this though.

In the end, isn't that all that really matters?
 
That’s the point, I believe people do, and in my own experience, I’ve made money from that opinion. That’s the point I’m expressing.

You are entitled to that opinion, and as I said, releasing your own film that way is perfectly fine, and not even unethical or amoral. Downloading and sharing someone else's movie is a whole other matter. You can read the rest of the thread as to how and why this affects the bottom line, but I ask you the same question I have asked repeatedly....

Why do you feel you or anyone else is entitled to get a free copy of the movie downloaded where the filmmaker gets no compensation?

Again, for your own film - NO PROBLEM. Why do you get to decide for everyone else that they do or don't deserve compensation for allowing the the world to get their movie for free?


Your use of “theft” is what I find hilarious. Yes, under the letter of the law, it’s theft.

How so? I own a film. Someone is giving my movie away for free without my permission. People get my property for free without paying me for it. Sounds like theft to me.... How do you define it?

Under the letter of the law, marijuana is illegal. Does that mean they’re automatically morally wrong? I don’t think so, of course I know many do….

Marijuana is a choice you make to buy it and smoke it. You aren't really violating someone else's rights or property by doing so. How does this compare to bootlegging a film online? Sure they are both illegal, but so is public masturbation; that doesn't make it similar.

Downloading my movie without my permission and sharing it with a few thousand people worldwide does affect me. Downloading someone else's movie and sharing it affects them and the value of their movie.

Your attempts at example and debate are kind of weird. They don't really relate and are incomparable.

So the difference, the people that don’t like your films enough to pay for them now, is not what you screwed out of people for a movie they probably hadn’t seen, but rather a difference that should have been paid to you on the sole basis that you made the film?

No, I should be paid solely because it is my movie and I think I should have the right to sell it or give it away, not have you or anyone else decide that for me, put it on a torrent site and take away that choice and right of mine as the OWNER of the film itself. I really don't mind if you give your movie away for free.... it's everyone else's that you're giving away and sharing I have a problem with. The movies are not yours to give away.

You can choose not to buy it or rent it, but why do you think you are entitled to get a copy of it for free online to find out?

Doesn't that make sense?
 
Last edited:
OH.... MY..... GOD....

But that's the thing. Where do you draw the line? I've worked at movie stories for 5+ years and haven't had to pay for a rental (which is why, to me, piracy has been superfluous, if I did it, they would remain unwatched, as I tended to the backlog of 14 rentals a week, which was tough on its own) so if I don't have to pay for a rental, and I can rent a film at any time, what's the difference if I have a digital copy I can watch anytime?

The difference is THE VIDEO STORE BOUGHT THE DVD('s)!!!!

You work at the video store. It's also a free rental, not a free copy of the film like the download is. This is like if your video store bought 1 DVD of a movie and you started making DVD copies with their DVD burner and giving free copies of the movies out to customers and told them to feel free and make copies and give them to their friends and make sure they make copies too for all their friends and family and other video stores across the globe without limitation.

How long would your video store stay open if they gave each customer the DVD to keep for free forever and asked people to share it worldwide online too? Ask Blockbuster.... this is one of the reasons they're filing for bankruptcy.

People think downloading a movie is no different than renting a video... except NO ONE PAID FOR THE MOVIE. That is the lost money. Even though you get the rental for free, your video store PAID FOR THE DVD... They don't pay the filmmakers for each rental. And you get to keep the movie forever if you want when you download it.

Sorry for seeming combative. Analyzing all this is morbidly interesting to me, on a moral level Don't mean to offend, although I'm sure I come off as an asshole, that's my sarcastic ability to alienate anyone.

Similar from me. I am not trying to offend you or anyone else. I don't take anything you're saying as personal, nor am I intending to say anything about anyone personally.

On a side note, but related.... if anyone is familiar with FANEDIT.ORG... I feel that if you genuinely own a copy of the movie, then this is totally legit (to me), even though it is technically illegal. Downloading a movie from them (not via torrent where it's sharing with people who may not own the movie) and you truly own the DVD - then this is a creative and interesting loophole. It's an alternate, fan-made version of the movie (that you own). Even if the filmmaker/copyright holder did not intend for the viewer to see a new edit of the film with deleted scenes incorporated into a film - this is different because they allowed the deleted scenes to be released and you paid to see those too. Or if a film is edited in some what different (like the infamous Phantom Edit of Star Wars), if you own the movie, then downloading that seems okay to me. It's a gray area, but I would never have a problem with it because the copyright holder was compensated for their original work. The new creation is not making any money from the download either.
 
Last edited:
Yes, ultimately, it's wrong, but there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it, it's a simple fact of life, and therefore we should take what advantage of it that we can, while we can.

Speak for yourself, I went to a lawfirm (from a link someone on this very site posted about) and we got over $18,000 in settlements from people who downloaded my movie illegally and that was from only 300 or so people. The more people get the torrents of my film, the more money we get back when the users get sued. Every year we make back even more money from these settlements and lawsuits, as more torrent sites come up, it means more and more $$$ for me.

My understanding from similar situations from friends who download, HBO is cracking down quite a bit more too. Time Warner is shutting off internet services to people who are using torrent sites to download copyrighted material. This is even outside of government intervention. I do not think this Wild West version of the Internet will last forever. It is a reality and a fact today, but don't count on it being here ever after...

Now you putting your own movie out there on peer to peer is even better when the hammer really starts to come down. As the illegal content shuts down, you stand to increase your downloads exponentially. That would be the IDEAL time for you to legally give your content away for free because people will want content and yours will be one of the only things they can get legally and legit.

So, looking at things analytically - you could find yourself in the perfect storm if you continue to share your own movies for free in the next 10 years...
 
Speak for yourself, I went to a lawfirm (from a link someone on this very site posted about) and we got over $18,000 in settlements from people who downloaded my movie illegally and that was from only 300 or so people.

You got 18k from 300 individuals? That's like 60 bucks a copy. Well Done

This was for downloading your movies only right?
 
You got 18k from 300 individuals? That's like 60 bucks a copy. Well Done

This was for downloading your movies only right?

This was the cash settlements for them illegally downloading the movie and getting caught, yes. They would have saved $50 to buy it legit like the other 300,000 people who did in the rest of the world.
 
At risk of reopening this pandora's box, I found this article interesting and disturbing:

http://www.filmindependent.org/news-and-blog/dont-steal-this-movie/

Good article. thanks for sharing.
But I still think there's a little more to it than just piracy. I've never heard of some of the small productions mentioned there. I wonder if they would actually be turning a profit, even without piracy.

But I definitely feel bad for Kick Ass. I haven't seen it, but if there were 11 million downloads, there was probably a good word of mouth buzz, and piracy could only have hurt it.
 
Besides, the difference in the impact of Internet theft on movies isn’t proportional to the costs of the movie. So, for example, a big studio production such as Avatar, which cost around $500 million to make, has, according to the Bay Area-based tracking service BayTSP, been illegally downloaded on eDonkey and BitTorrent 13 million times, while a medium budget movie such as The Social Network, which cost $40 million to make has been downloaded 9 million times over the last six months. The superhero movie Kick-Ass, which cost around $30 million to make and collected $48 million at the domestic box office (that’s only $24 million to the studio after the exhibitor’s share), sold approximately 6.1 million tickets. Meanwhile, according to TorrentFreak, it was the second-most downloaded movie in 2010, with 11.4 million downloads worldwide. The comparison between Avatar and Kick-Ass is particularly instructive: the medium budget movie cost 15 percent of the big studio production, but suffered almost as many illegal downloads, crippling its chances to recoup its investment.

Another instructive example is the critically acclaimed The Hurt Locker, which cost $15 million to produce and came in ninth on the TorrentFreak 2010 list with almost 7 million downloads. Its overall worldwide box office was a disappointing $49 million, despite winning a DGA Award and an Oscar for best picture and best director. Given the dramatic impact of Internet theft on this small budget indie, it’s the difference between a profitable movie and breaking even, between financial success and failure.

WOW. a great article. Lots of research and detail...

I've never heard of some of the small productions mentioned there. I wonder if they would actually be turning a profit, even without piracy.

As I've said before, there are additional revenue streams that are now have no value because of Internet piracy. I have spent some time mulling over this and the alleged "would not have bought it anyway..." and I think it's crap. You cannot possibly account for time and what someone may or may not do in the future. They may not have bought the movie at that moment in time, but you cannot see the future. They may have bought it 2-3 years from then. Why bother if you already own the movie?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top