by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
An interview worth listening to: Ruth Vitale, CEO of Creative Future, talked about technology and innovation in the film industry during a recent radio interview with journalist John Hockenberry for the public radio morning show The Takeaway on WNYC and PRI. Creative Future promotes the value of creativity in today’s digital age and during the interview Vitale explains the ties that bind the tech industry with the creative industry and how copyright ensures our collective (creative) future.
You can listen to the interview with Ruth Vitale here.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
The fight against movie piracy is a fight FOR diversity
It’s no secret that Hollywood has a long way to go when it comes to diversity and a new report released today by the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative at USC’s 
Annenberg School shows just how far. Echoing findings of a similar study issued last winter by UCLA’s Bunche Center, today’s report finds that women, minorities and LGBT characters are not only rare–but often insignificant in Hollywood films. The findings include:
- Of the 4,610 speaking or named characters on screen, only 19 were coded as LGBT across the 100 top films of 2014.
- Only 30.2% of the 30,835 speaking characters evaluated were female across the 700 top‐grossing films from 2007 to 2014. This calculates to a gender ratio of 2.3 to 1. Only 11% of 700 films had gender‐balanced casts or featured girls/women in roughly half (45‐54.9%) of the speaking roles.
- Only 17 of the 100 top films of 2014 featured a lead or co lead actor from an underrepresented racial and/or ethnic group. An additional 3 films depicted an ensemble cast with 50% or more of the group comprised of actors from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds.
- In 2014, no female actors over 45 years of age performed a lead or co lead role. Only three of the female actors in lead or co lead roles were from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds. No female leads or co leads were Lesbian or Bisexual characters.
The report is a must-read, but how does it have anything to do with the topic “movie piracy” or the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)? Well, given that Hollywood is clearly doing a pretty lousy job telling the diverse stories of our society at large, where can audiences watch films that reflect our lives? Look no further than the narratives created by a diverse cornucopia of independent filmmakers.
Pirate sites around the globe feature stolen LGBT movies
Unlike those in Hollywood, indie filmmakers are not well-funded and often have to cobble together lean production budgets using a variety of sources from credit cards to crowd-funding. Without the deep pockets of the studios, these filmmakers often go deep into the red to create their not-so-mainstream films.
So, when it comes to assessing piracy’s damage, indie filmmakers, like their counterparts in music, are often the most vulnerable. As I noted in a 2013 blog post about the negative impact piracy has on LGBT cinema:
Unlike studio-backed films, these titles usually don’t get a theatrical release and so are totally dependent on back-end revenue (VOD, DVD, TV) to recoup production costs and pay off debts. Parasitic pirates, who themselves profit from piracy, erode this much-needed revenue stream.
This brings me to the EFF and a recent blog post by Mitch Stoltz, a Senior Staff Attorney there. In response to recent efforts by the movie industry to shut down a group of piracy-for-profit websites based offshore, Stoltz sounded the alarm by dusting off the well-worn SOPA canard and cries of “censorship” and “abuse.” His love of the word “abuse” was so strong, in fact, variations of the term appear 9 times in his piece.
Isn’t it time for those at the EFF and others who yell “SOPA” each time the movie industry takes legal action against online pirates to shut the hell up? What is abusive is the way online piracy (for profit) is allowed to flourish, made sacrosanct by tech apologists.
Why can’t we differentiate between websites engaged in theft for profit and legit ones? Are we (and the courts) really that stupid? When it comes to other illegal activity online we manage to differentiate between the good guys and the bad…drugs, child porn, etc.
Piracy is not free speech, it’s theft.
Asking that pirate sites be shut down for criminal activity (movie piracy) is no different. Despite the hyperbole, it’s also not an attack on “free speech.” In fact, ridding the web of pirates actually strengthens “free speech” by helping make sure that oft-marginalized subjects and stories brought to the screen by indie filmmakers are not muted.
Why can’t the EFF find value in protecting the diversity of free speech found in film?
EFF bluster is nothing new. It’s a tired old playbook that I’ve addressed in earlier posts:
…the EFF routinely muddies the waters and conflate valid concerns over online privacy and free speech rights with copyright holders’ efforts to protect their work from infringement. Protecting rights within all three realms is important and doing so effectively, despite EFF rhetoric to the contrary, need not be a mutually exclusive process. The EFF approach to protecting “rights” in the digital age has always has been disingenuous. Gin up hysteria in order to push an anti-copyright agenda–an agenda, covertly built on the interests of the tech industry and NOT the community at large.
So, back to the issue at hand…lack of diversity in film. I would argue that the fight against online piracy is also a fight FOR filmmakers who create diverse films. It’s also a fight for the jobs of all those involved in making them.
There’s no question Hollywood needs to do a (much) better job when it comes to including women, minorities and LGBT in roles on camera and off, but in its perhaps own inadvertent way–by taking aim at online pirates–the industry is helping make sure that audiences worldwide will continue have access to independently produced films, rich with a myriad of characters and stories.
While Stoltz and his tech-influenced ilk continue to demonize Hollywood’s efforts against piracy, I will continue to applaud them for taking action. They are fighting the good fight against piracy for all filmmakers. Meanwhile I will continue to advocate for a Hollywood that better reflects the world around us. The two are not mutually exclusive.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy
Yes Charles, online piracy does pose a threat to the health of independent film
Charles Judson, a self-described “Writer, Film Critic/Consultant,” raised some eyebrows–mine included–with a piece published this week on cinematlmagazine.com which featured the headline, ” Is Piracy a Danger to Independent Film? Part 1: The Search-In Which I Can’t Find Much of Anything” It’s a (sort-of) rebuttal to the recent post on indiewire.com “Here’s How Piracy Hurts Indie Film,” co-authored by Creative Future’s Executive Director Ruth Vitale and Tim League Founder/CEO of Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in which they examined how online piracy undermines independent filmmakers:
The fact is: pirate sites don’t discriminate based on a movie’s budget. As long as they can generate revenue from advertising and credit card payments—while giving away your stolen content for free—pirate site operators have little reason to care if a film starts with an investment of $10,000 or $200 million. Whether you’re employed by a major studio or a do-it-yourself creator, if you’re involved in the making of TV or film, it’s safe to assume that piracy takes a big cut out of your business.
In his piece Mr. Judson appears to be skeptical of their assertions and goes to great lengths to prove them wrong. He recounts conducting his own (unscientific) online research to determine the extent to which independent films are pirated online. His first mistake was limiting his searches for listings on Kickass Torrents:
Let’s start with something easy to test that first claim, we’ll do that by using Kickass Torrents to search for films that screened at Sundance this year. We’ll use the films from the U.S. Documentary (16), U.S. Dramatic (16), and Premiere (19) sections. With 51 films listed and this being six months after their initial screenings, it should give us a strong picture.
His findings lead him to draw this questionable conclusion with a caveat: “So far though, it doesn’t appear that pirates have much interest in indie films. Not to the extent they do mainstream releases.” 
Mr. Judson also asks, “ If piracy is a threat, why is [it] so hard to find films that have been screening and available in various forms since January?”
The answer to Judson’s query is simple: he’s looking in the wrong place.
Aside from the fact Judson’s focus on Sundance-screened films is myopic (a selection that fails to reflect a true cross-section of American independent film) his use of KickAss Torrents as a bellwether for online piracy is simply naive. Though torrents garner much attention, it’s a big mistake to view this type of pirated download as the only game in town. 
In fact, for many niche indie films the threat of piracy comes not from torrents, but from cyber-locker (and even Google-hosted) pirated movie downloads and streams that provide a viewing experience akin to Netflix. On this blog I’ve documented numerous examples of online pirates who ply their wares by providing consumers with convenient (and free) movie watching experiences.
Why use Wolfeondemand.com when you can find your favorite LGBT films on a Blogger-hosted pirate site that offers hundreds of titles for free?
As a matter of fact I searched for a few of the titles on Judson’s list (those he found torrents for, and some he did not) and easily found dozens of non-torrent links to pirate streams and downloads. A few links had already reported for “copyright infringement.”
Streams and download links to indie films are easy to find if you know where to look
In those cases, the filmmakers or their distributors were obviously working to protect their productions. But links for other movies on his list (see graphic above) were still active and ripe for download or streaming. While I don’t claim my results are scientific, they do lend credence to the fact hat today’s piracy has moved beyond torrents.
Finding Cyberlocker downloads for films Judson found no torrents for was easy
Mr. Judson’s conclusions about piracy’s (non) impact based on searching for torrents is not only questionable, but also relies on fuzzy math.
It’s a given that indie films aren’t pirated to the same extent that major Hollywood releases are, but so what? That’s really beside the point isn’t it? The financial hit piracy can have on an indie film made on a shoe-string budget can be just as great, percentage-wise, as piracy on a blockbuster film like Expendables 3.
Indie filmmakers don’t generally have deep pockets and have often begged from others and borrowed from themselves in order to make their films. Every penny earned on the backend counts. Just this week filmmaker Zach Forsman wrote a piece for FilmSchoolRejects.com where he recounted his experience with online piracy and the damage it caused:
Six weeks after Down and Dangerous was released domestically on iTunes and VOD, our distributor estimated that it had sold 10,000 streams and downloads, topping out at number 13 on the iTunes Thrillers Chart. Not too shabby. By that time, torrents of the movie had been downloaded at least as many times. Now it would be ridiculous to count all 10,000 downloaded torrents as lost revenue. But if only 10% of those could have been converted to legit sales, that’s another $7,000 we could have grossed. Not a massive amount of money, but to an outfit that crowd funded a $38,000 budget to make the sucker, it’s significant.
The piracy of “Raid 2” is not limited to torrents
Judson tries to split hairs a bit acknowledging that , “Having someone pick your pockets to the point you are losing money isn’t a good. It’s a path that will make funding that next feature, and making a living while developing that feature, impossible.” Yet, based on his research, he appears to be skeptical that online piracy is damaging to indie filmmakers:
Shouldn’t it be a concern that every minute a filmmaker spends policing piracy, is a minute they aren’t promoting their film to the audience that will pay for their film? If piracy is a threat, why is so hard to find films that have been screening and available in various forms since January?
…If indie filmmakers are going to be recruited to join a battle against illegal downloads, if doing this “better serves audiences and artists,” we better be damn sure it’s time well spent.
Of course an indie filmmaker’s time would be better spent making new films, BUT if your work is being ripped off right and left by online pirate profiteers, the sad truth is that it does impact the bottom line. Views lost to piracy can be the difference between paying off production debts or not. Those losses can mean the difference between making another movie or finding a day job.
I’d suggest that the skeptical Mr. Judson take a look at the video embedded below to learn just how pervasive online piracy is, even for small indie films (btw, none of the pirate links mentioned in the video are torrents). Frankly, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that piracy takes a toll on filmmakers both large and small.
Follow the Money: Who Profits from Piracy?
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy
The movie Lyle is being streamed online for free
This week I’ve come across two pieces written by indie filmmakers that discuss distribution options in the age online piracy. While it’s good to see the issue being addressed, the dichotomy between the two reveals that differences remain developing distribution models in an age where revenue streams are undermined by online profiteers.
The first piece published on filmmakermagazine.com by Stewart Thorndike and Alex Scharfman, “Why We Are Giving Our Feature Away for Free at LYLEmovie.com,” presents the filmmakers’ plan to give the movie away for “free” in order to engender good will and drive donations for their next project in a planned horror trilogy:
We wanted to stick with the idea that got us to Lyle: the desire to control our film’s destiny and not wait for permission.
It is in that spirit that we’re giving Lyle away for free at LYLEmovie.com. Sure, we could send the film out on the festival circuit and hope for a more traditional distribution offer, but that would take months or even years.
While the goal to “control the destiny” of one’s film is a laudable one, it’s also not one that will work for every indie film.
In this case, the filmmakers see giving their film away as smart marketing explaining, “By giving Lyle away, we’re inviting that audience to come find us and help us make more movies for them.” It’s a laudable plan and I wish them well in their efforts. After all, how one distributes one’s film should be a matter of personal choice. However, in explaining their approach they seem to view the digital world through slightly rose colored glasses:
The music industry, whose models seem to be a few years ahead of film, has already seen artists like Radiohead make their work available in exchange for whatever a fan wants to give. In the comedy world, Louis CK had enormous success when offering a pay-what-you-want (with a $5 minimum) deal on his standup special in 2011. In our case, we’re inviting Lyle’s viewers to donate what they want to our next film, Putney. Through this model, we hope to disrupt the traditional financing and distribution paradigms by tying the distribution of one project to the financing of another, democratizing both to create an audience and a brand on which we will build with Putney.
To point to the pay-what-you-like (one-time) distribution efforts used by Radiohead and Louis CK as a workable model for distributing small indie films, while sincere, seems a tad simplistic. After all, even Radiohead referred to the stunt as a “one off.”
Many music fans had hoped that the band’s now famous pay-what-you-want promotion was an attempt by the group to discover a new way to sell music. Now it appears Radiohead at best was after publicity.
While giving their film away for free to finance a second low-budget film might be the right choice for them, it certainly won’t “disrupt the traditional financing and distribution paradigms.” Those paradigms have already been radically disrupted by online piracy and, despite good intentions, not every feature film can be made via crowd-funded micro-budgets.
The latter point is one that filmmaker Zak Forsman raises in “I Made a Movie Worth Stealing: My Experience with Piracy,” posted this week on filmschoolrejects.com. Forsman recounted his experience with online piracy following the release of his feature, Down and Dangerous:
The movie has been uploaded in its entirety to YouTube about a dozen times now. Most recently, I issued a takedown for a Vietnamese-subtitled version.
As I filed that first copyright violation and takedown request, I wondered, “Is this going to be part of making movies now? Chasing down pirated copies and jumping through hoops to get them removed?”
Forsman notes there may be a difference between micro-budget productions and indie films with bigger budgets:
…if I were releasing the movie myself, directly to fans, I’d be happy to see people steal it and share it. Truly. Working in microbudgets affords me the opportunity to be a bit of a gambler when it comes to raising a movie’s profile. But in this case, I had a responsibility to protect the movie’s potential sales on behalf of our distributors.
Forsman also attempts to quantify the actual toll piracy took on his film’s revenue making a conservative estimate that if 10% of 10,000 illegal downloads were converted into legit sales it would add an additional $7,000 to their gross. As he points out, it’s not an insignificant figure for a film that cost $38,000. Having experienced the reality of online piracy firsthand, he also outlines steps filmmakers can take to prepare.
In contrast, the Lyle filmmakers have made the choice to attempt to sidestep piracy entirely by giving the film away. As writer/director Thorndike noted in an interview with tribecafilm.com, ” Instead of paying to see the movie, you pay, if you liked the movie, to see the next movie get made.” It will be interesting to see how this approach plays out, but given the fact that online pirates don’t give a darn where they steal films from, the movie will most likely still be pirated. Within days the (free) streamed film will be stolen from the filmmaker’s own website and pirated elsewhere, reducing visitors to their own Kickstarter campaign. Meanwhile, per usual, online pirates will be generating income off the stolen movie via their own sites.
Given the low amount of funding sought ($35,000), in this instance the piracy is unlikely to prevent a successful fundraising campaign, but moving forward, will these filmmakers want to limit themselves to only produce micro-budget films? At some point those who work on these films will want to make a living doing so. Does this approach really sustain a robust indie filmmaking culture? Is this really the “paradigm” filmmakers want for their future?
In any case it’s good to see indie filmmakers acknowledge online piracy’s impact on distribution and engage in discussions about ways to dull the damage. Here’s hoping we can learn from their experiences and see more films from them in the future.
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy, TV
LGBT pirate blogs that claim to love the films and shows that reflect their lives, yet undermine creators ability to make more
It’s bad enough seeing indie LGBT films pirated via torrent sites like Pirate Bay and cyberlockers like Mega, but it’s particularly galling to see supposed fans of LGBT films operating websites that think nothing of undermining filmmakers from their own community. Time after time fans of LGBT films ask why more films reflecting their lives aren’t made, yet many of those same fans think nothing of pirating the LGBT films that are made effectively cannibalizing their own filmmakers.
LGBT films are usually made outside the Hollywood system and depend entirely on grassroots funding efforts to cover production costs. When these films are pirated, recouping expenses is made more difficult and threatens the filmmaker’s ability to create more films.
Much is made about the democratization of filmmaking through increasingly affordable technology. Yet no matter whether a film is shot on 35 mm or digital, it still costs money to create. Money–to pay for cast and crew, equipment and permits, insurance and meals–does not fall from the heavens. There’s also the cost of pre-production: planning, script development and completion, casting, location scouting, scheduling, hiring a crew, etc. After the film is shot, taking weeks or months, there are post-production costs to consider. These include editing, sound-mixing, music, special FX, color-correction and mastering. This entire process takes time and money. People who create indie films aren’t in it to get rich. They are driven by a passion to create and give voice to untold stories but it doesn’t come free. There are debts to be paid.
Unfortunately, this disconnect between those who create and those who consume threatens to gradually the diversity of voices (and choices) available. Fans may not miss what’s not made until it’s too late…As they say, actions speak louder than words. You can’t claim to support LGBT indie film yet download or stream illegal copies of those same films. However, as I surf the web and explore the many blogs dedicated to LGBT film, too often I find this hypocrisy in full bloom
The blog “Popcorn ‘N Tits” is part of the PNT Tv Network, “a femqueer entertainment website where you can find webseries, movies, music and literary articles that reflect our lives.” It’s beyond ironic, and rather sad that operators choose to exploit the very content they claim to love. Ironically one of their partner blogs features this plea,
This blog is dedicated to support the art of filmmaking. You love watching our movies, shorts, and web-series but filmmakers need money to make that happen. You can do this by donating to these projects, no matter how small the sum.
So true, yet this same blog network apparently doesn’t see the disconnect when it includes a site that apparently pirates movies and tv shows at will (see graphics below). Note this is only one example of many I’ve found during my web wanderings.
