New study shows bias against women in film continues

New study shows bias against women in film continues

by | Film

Slated Study - Women In FilmYet again, women in Hollywood find themselves on the short end of the stick

A new infographic by Slated (an organization that filmmakers with talent, financing & distribution) first published in The Hollywood Reporter exposes a “a systemic lack of trust on the part of the film industry when it comes to collaborating with women in the workplace.” 

The infographic’s authors used statistical analysis to look at 1,591 feature films released (theatrically) between 2010 and 2015 and published findings via an infographic.

Bias was documented not only by the woefully low numbers of female directors, but even in categories like supporting actors where only 41% of the roles were filled by women.  While such inequality has been highlighted in previous studies like the Celluloid Ceiling Report published by researchers at San Diego State, Slated’s data analysis looks took another approach by asking, “how data science can best be harnessed to offset what is evidently a pattern of institutionalized bias at play in the marketplace.”

Slated’s CEO Stephan Paternot told the Hollywood Reporter’s Rebecca Sun that the issue goes beyond gender disparity in employment, pointing to an overall “trust gap” that handicaps female filmmakers:

Women are being given fewer films, and not only is that true, but they’re having to make their movies with less money, so they’re doing it with one arm tied behind their back. That effectively puts less production value up on the screen, meaning movies with a little narrower scope…  And once the product is all made, assuming it’s as good despite having less money, it’s then handicapped by being shown on two-thirds fewer screens. Those movies just don’t get seen. So then there’s this ongoing perception that women just aren’t really into the movie industry, and if they do make stuff, it’s not quite as good. – Hollywood Reporter

This “trust deficiency” exists despite the fact that while women-helmed features often have lower budgets, they “generate higher returns,” providing a higher return on investment (ROI).  This disparity is most evident among screenwriters where women achieve the highest ROI, yet account for less than 10% of theatrically released screenplays.

After reviewing the data, Slated researchers asked:, “When one looks at the ROIs, it’s clear that women are outperforming men all over the place — so what can we do as an industry to make sure that the production volumes are more comparable?”

Overall Slated’s analysis revealed:

  • Women Directors are the most under-represented major category in cinema, accounting for 8.8% of films made in this survey period. They are followed by Women Writers (13.2%), Women Producers (19.8%) and Women Acting Leads (29.4%) Even roles for Supporting Actors, which one might think would be close to fifty-fifty, are tilted towards men.

  • Regardless of role, women are afforded smaller budgets than their male counterparts. And yet, with the exception of Women Directors, those same women generate higher returns despite deploying those smaller production resources.

  • Women Writers seem particularly shortchanged: Their scripts achieve the highest ROI of any category and yet their work commands two-thirds of the average budgets given to Male Writers. This imbalance becomes particularly egregious for films budgeted at more than $25 million, a category in which Women Writers achieve an industry-high ROI of 3.72 and yet account for just 8.7% of theatrically released screenplays.

  • Even though male writers generate considerably more theatrical material than women writers, the market potential for their screenplays is essentially the same. The tiny difference in their Slated SCRIPT SCORES, an industry-weighted measure of a script’s quality that is derived from the year-adjusted performance analysis of 191 screenplays, does not come close to the imbalance in their script production volumes. For Male Writers that score is 78.0; for Female Writers it is 76.6.

  • In every cinematic genre, far fewer films are directed by women than by men. But if you adjust for that discrepancy, you will see that the volume of films made in each genre by men and women flexes up and down in surprising synchrony. So, too, does the ROI on those genres for both sexes.

Here’s the rest of Slated’s infographic:

2-Slated_infographic_women_filmstudy

Infographic: Slated.com

Infographic: Slated.com

Update to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long Overdue

Update to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long Overdue

by | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy, Politics

DMCA is outdated and broken

Momentum is building for changes to the DMCA that will better protect creators

Content creators from all walks of life are coalescing around the need to update copyright law to protect their work against theft in digital age.  A piece in yesterday’s NY Times,  Music World Bands Together Against YouTube, Seeking Change to Law, is the latest to highlight growing calls by the creative community to update a woefully antiquated Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

In its newest effort, the music industry has asked the federal government to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, saying that the law, which was passed in 1998 and protects sites like YouTube that host copyrighted material posted by users, is outdated and makes removing unauthorized content too difficult.

Cary Sherman, the chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, says that even when songs are taken down, they can easily be uploaded again.

“This is a new form of piracy,” he said. “You don’t have to go into dark corners and sell stuff out of your car. You can do it in plain sight and rely on the D.M.C.A. to justify that what you’re doing is perfectly legal.” –NY Times

Last month the U.S. Copyright Office held public roundtables in New York and San Francisco to hear testimony as part of its study to “evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions contained in section 512 of title 17, United States Code.”

As part of the study, the Copyright Office also solicited public comments. While I shared by thoughts with researchers at Mason Law’s Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic for its submission, “Middle Class Artists Want a DMCA System that Works”  I also drafted my own statement.  Although my comments are part of the public record, I thought I’d share my them here as well.   My hope is to generate further dialogue as to how we can advocate for a meaningful update to the DMCA so that moving forward, creators’ rights (and livelihoods) will be better protected.

Here’s my submission to the U.S. Copyright Office.

Updating the DMCA – Areas of Concern

Overwhelming volume

The DMCA is currently the only tool content creators have available to safeguard their work from online theft and profiteering. Unfortunately, these days, using the DMCA to fight piracy is about effective as standing under Niagara Falls holding an umbrella.

Within a few months of our independent film’s release in 2010 we’d found more than 56,000 illegal download links and streams for pirated copies. Those are only the ones we managed to uncover. There were likely thousands more.

Multiply that figure by hundreds, if not thousands, of downloads per link and one can begin to appreciate the scope of the problem. Of course not every illegal download equals a lost sale, but even looking at a fraction of the total, the income lost by diluting legit sales can represent the difference between paying off production debts and making another film, or not.

The time and effort spent in policing piracy on the web is time and effort most independent artists cannot afford. For larger entities that can engage takedown services to manage the work for them the process remains an expensive and daunting task.

Ultimately such efforts can only slow, not stop, the incredible tide of online piracy.

Overly complex takedown procedures

While that language required to craft a legal DMCA takedown notice is straightforward, the process for actually sending it to an OSP’s takedown agent is often not so clear. While some OSPs accept email notification (as required by law), other larger entities, like Google, prefer that requests be sent via a cumbersome and time-consuming online process.

Uploading infringing content to a Google site can be done with a mere click of a mouse, unfortunately removing it is not quite so simple. Because the email address for Google’s DMCA Agent is not posted on its websites, rights holders must jump through various hoops and navigate through a series of questions in order to arrive at the correct form. Once there it takes additional time to complete the 9-part form. Before one can actually send it one must be sure to create a Google account, then login and send.

Once the takedown request is sent, no copy of the actual takedown request is generated, only a brief acknowledgement of receipt. Then it’s a waiting game to see whether the infringing content gets removed.

Sending a simple DMCA takedown notice via email is simple, fast, and makes record keeping and follow up easy.   Any update to the DMCA should continue to support email as an efficient way to send takedown requests and require that OSPs process emails with the same speed as those submitted via the web form.

Repeat infringement

Even if one sends a DMCA takedown notice to Google reporting a site for dozens of illegal links, Google allows the site to remain online.   It takes multiple notices, sent 48 hours apart, to trigger any sort of account disabling.

Other sites employ varying degrees of punishment for repeat infringers and some do nothing. This is certainly an area of concern for rights holders as it adds to the overall ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of the DMCA notice and takedown process.

Any update to the DMCA should specify what constitutes a repeat infringement and require that OSPs publish this information on their website. The law should also require that the OSP be responsible for preventing any re-upload of content already reported as infringing. This can be achieved by employing technological solutions described in the following section.

Technological Solutions

Technology brought us to this point. It’s time technology be utilized to help safeguard copyrighted work. YouTube’s Content ID system, though not without problems, at least provides a way for rights holders to find and manage YouTube access for their music or films. Cloud storage provider Dropbox also employs technology to scan files for identifying hash data so that reported files cannot be uploaded repeatedly.

If an OSP’s (online service provider) business model is predicated on monetizing user-generated content (not vetted for copyright) then the OSP should be required, by law, to implement some form of digital fingerprinting to prevent infringing material from being uploaded in the first place. This type of technology would also help address enforce a takedown – stay down approach and prevent repeated uploads of pirated content to a site.

If an OSP does not have the resources to build its own proprietary tech like YouTube’s Content ID, there are a number of third-party vendors, like Vobile, that offer digital fingerprinting. While such 3rd-party services are not free, it seems only fair that cost of implementing a digital gatekeeper be considered a cost of doing business. Creators have long borne the “costs” of OSPs monetizing their content without permission. Having OSPs tap into profits to better protect copyright seems only fair.

Any update to the law should include a requirement that, in order to qualify for the limitations to liability that safe-harbor offers, certain user-generated content sites must implement reasonable technology to mitigate content theft.

Counter-notices and small claims process

Not only are creators burdened with having to play detective to find and remove their stolen content from various websites, but even the counter-notice system works against rights holders.

The counter-notice system allows recipients of an erroneous DMCA to prevent the removal of content and while such a system of checks and balances is important, problems occur when such counter-notices are themselves erroneous. Unless the sender of the DMCA notice files in federal court to enforce the takedown, following a 10-day waiting period, the reported content is reposted.

For most indie artists, the cost of filing in federal court to enforce a DMCA takedown is far too costly and so, in these cases, the infringing content remains online. I’ve experienced this situation multiple times and have seen full copies of a film reposted after a counter-notice (claiming fair use) was sent after a takedown on YouTube.

Perhaps, as part of any update to the DMCA, the time has finally come to create a small claims process to adjudicate copyright claims outside the federal court system. The U.S. Copyright Office has already studied the issue and has recommended creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to resolve copyright small claims. (http://copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/usco-smallcopyrightclaims.pdf )

Content removed due to infringement should not be replaced by direct links to 3rd party site(s) that republish the same infringing links

Another issue not addressed by the DMCA is a problem that’s arisen thanks to a third-party database that records all the DMCA notices received by a number of OSPs including Google. The Lumen database https://lumendatabase.org/ (formerly Chilling Effects) offers a searchable database of these DMCA notices. While this might serve as a valuable archive, Lumen’s searchable database, in its current form, does not redact the infringing URLs from the DMCA notices and so–in effect–becomes an efficient search engine for pirated content. This afternoon I used Lumen’s search engine to look for illegal copies of the recent release “Carol.” With one click I found a link, then right-click and I ended up at an active, illegal copy online.

Lumen’s DMCA notices are also easily found thanks to Google’s direct links to them in what would seem to be blatant disregard for the DMCA’s intent–if not the law. The scenario works like this: When an infringing link is removed from Google search following a DMCA request, the search result remains, but the original infringing link is simply replaced with a fresh hyperlink to the DMCA notice stored in Lumen’s database. Essentially, removing the infringing link from Google search with a DMCA takedown requests only means a web user searching for pirated copies only has to click one additional link in order to find the pirated content he/she was looking for.

While the database itself may claim to operate under the mantel of “free speech” one has to ask how Google qualifies for “safe harbor” protection when infringing links removed from its search engine are replaced by a link to the DMCA notice on the Lumen database that contains the same, un-redacted infringing link.  This type of re-linking should be explicitly banned in any update of the DMCA.

What’s at stake

Takedowns will continue to be a part of any DMCA fix, but collectively we must figure out a better way streamline the process, utilize technology, and mediate disputes in order to protect copyright and support a culture where creators can flourish– and the wealth of content they create can be enjoyed, and sustained, by consumers throughout the world.

If nothing is done to update the DMCA for the 21st century, content creators of all stripes will continue to struggle and the diversity, and variety of quality of creative content available to consumers will diminish. At first, we may not miss what isn’t made, but eventually our creative culture will be the lesser for it.

 

 

 

Box Office Profits NOT Proof Piracy Doesn’t Hurt

Box Office Profits NOT Proof Piracy Doesn’t Hurt

by | Copyright, Film, Piracy

Piracy hurts film industryPiracy erodes audience options-forces studios to make fewer films

The movie industry makes record profits so piracy doesn’t matter after all.…that’s the gist of many headlines following MPAA Chief Chris Dodd’s recent speech at Cinemacon’s Las Vegas convention last week where he said, “the state of our industry has never been stronger.”  We’ve seen this phenomenon before.  Positive news about record global box office revenue is twisted into justification for the pro-piracy mantra that piracy doesn’t hurt filmmakers.

These rosy 2015 box office figures were first announced in January.  Then, as with now, piracy apologists pounced on the message as proof piracy doesn’t negatively impact the movie industry. Even those writing about it took note of the repetitive nature of their particular meme as Techdirt’s Mike Masnick noted in a January post:

We seem to end up posting stories like this every year, but it just keeps on happening. Hollywood whines and whines and whines about how piracy is killing the movie business… and then announces yet another record year at the box office.

The idea that record profits prove piracy doesn’t matter both simplistic and naive.  Sure, Hollywood (and studios throughout the world) are making movies….big movies, blockbuster movies, superhero movies, sequels galore…remakes of movies that have already been made.  Such fare performs well at the box office.  However, if one drills deeper, beyond the totals, it’s easy to find proof that online piracy is corroding filmmaking in a way that undermines both consumers and creators.

Piracy diminishes both the number–and diversity– of films being made, both inside and outside Hollywood.

I’ve written about this issue before.

While (most) Hollywood studios did make a lot of money in 2015, the truth conveniently omitted from the post in Torrent Freak is that they did so by producing fewer films.  After all, the studios are in the business of making money for their shareholders and to that end–in this age of unchecked piracy–fewer chances can be taken on movies that won’t draw huge crowds.  The Hollywood films that are being made are those that are sure bets to overcome digital theft and still make money.  In 2015, the top 5 films made 20% of the revenue.

Evidence of the less is more trend is everywhere.  Earlier this month it was reported that Warner Brothers would produce fewer films, focusing instead on “tentpole” productions.  According to a recent story in The Hollywood Reporter:

Warners long has been known for its commitment to filmmaker- and star-driven projects, but sources see signs of a change in culture, though the studio denies there is one. Several executives and agents say Warners seems to be greenlighting fewer homegrown movies as it focuses on silos that echo those that generate so many hits for Disney (Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar and Disney Animation). In Warners’ case, the silos are DC Comics, Lego and a planned franchise spun off from the Harry Potter series.

In March, Variety reported on a report “Another Memo to Hollywood. Prediction? Pain.”  Written  Creutz, an analyst for research firm Cowen and Company, Cruetz told Variety’s James Rainey that Hollywood’s future looked “increasingly dire” due to shrinking audiences.

Creutz says the industry’s woes are demonstrated by the fifth consecutive year in which domestic box office demand “has taken a step function lower.” The fight for remaining audiences has become increasingly fierce as “the market appears to be condensing into fewer, but bigger, hits,” as studios crank out more films in the $100 million-plus budget range…

…Creutz offers a welter of stats to back up his contraction argument: “Last year, over 25% of total box office came from just five films, well above the average of roughly 16% from 2001-14 and the prior peak of 19% in 2012.” He called this a “consistent phenomenon.”

Consumers should be worried that, over the last decade, the number of films Hollywood’s produced has dropped precipitously.  What this means is fewer choices for audiences.   Films that tell stories about characters (people) who are neither CGI super heroes nor animated characters are quickly becoming an endangered species.

David Gritten examined Hollywood’s move toward producing fewer films for a piece in  The Telegraph:

BUT EVEN SUPPOSING THE STUDIOS ARE RIGHT: THAT FEWER FILMS ARE BETTER, BIGGER FILMS MAKE MORE SENSE, THAT COMMERCIALLY TESTED AND TRIED MATERIAL IS THE PRUDENT WAY TO GO, THAT TEENAGERS WILL ALWAYS BE THE MOST PLIABLE AUDIENCES – WHERE’S THE VICTORY IN THAT?

EVEN IF CURRENT STUDIO THINKING IS PROVED RIGHT AND IN THE LONG TERM, BLOCKBUSTERS ENABLE THEM TO RAKE IN REVENUE AND LOOK WALL STREET SQUARELY IN THE EYE, CONSIDER WHAT’S BEEN LOST. HOLLYWOOD WILL BE CHURNING OUT A PREDICTABLE SERIES OF DULL, MONOTONOUS, SPECIAL-EFFECTS HEAVY, DRAMATICALLY INCOHERENT MOVIES FOR A RELATIVELY SMALL SEGMENT OF THE CINEMA-GOING AUDIENCE. THE STUDIOS MAY SURVIVE: BUT WHAT A DIMINISHED INDUSTRY THEY’LL BE PRESIDING OVER.

Online piracy’s corrosive impact on content creation not limited to theatrical releases

Of course, piracy is but one factor in a complex potpourri of influences provoking shifts in the movie business.  As distribution models continue to evolve in this digital age the rise of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, et al has certainly been felt.  Yet, even as viewing choices shift away from theaters to streaming outlets, these producers are not immune from piracy’s damage effect.  Streaming’s top dog Netflix has teamed with digital protection firm Vobile to safeguard its digital content (and subscriber base) from online thieves.   Whether productions are destined for theatrical release or for viewing in the comfort of ones own home, content producers still need to generate revenue in order to thrive.

Piracy’s apologists who chortle that Hollywood should adopt new business practices as a response to piracy are getting their wish.  Under duress Hollywood is adapting, but at what cost to us–the viewing public?  Evolving to to meet the 21st century digital world is inevitable, but should it be illegal theft that dictates how such change will manifest itself?

With this type of evolution, in the end, we will be the losers.  It’s difficult to appreciate how much we’re truly missing if it’s never made…

Google’s “safe browsing” initiative is more bark than bite

Google’s “safe browsing” initiative is more bark than bite

by | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Film, Piracy

Google-safe-search-headlines.fake

Headlines say one thing, Google’s actions say another

Despite headlines, it’s still business as usual for Google — Piracy sites full of malware and deceptive ads remain at top in Google search results

Last fall Google introduced a series of steps to strengthen its Safe Browsing initiative announcing it would include protection against, “social engineering attacks – deceptive tactics that try to trick you into doing something dangerous, like installing unwanted software or revealing your personal information (for example, passwords, phone numbers, or credit cards).  

In February Google went further and announced it would add protection against what it called “deceptive embedded content, like social engineering ads” to its “Safe Browsing” strategy.  According to Google, such sites would:

  • Pretend to act, or look and feel, like a trusted entity — like your own device or browser, or the website itself.
  • Try to trick you into doing something you’d only do for a trusted entity — like sharing a password or calling tech support.

If a user attempted to visit such a site, Google said this warning screen would appear.

SBWarnBlur

Of course to benefit from “safe search” one has to set Chrome preferences to “protect you and your devices from dangerous sites.”

Is re-posting 2 month old news Google’s technique for generating positive headlines?

Today, the very same post re-posted on Google’s Official Webmaster Central Blog.  Why repost an old post?  Could it be Google’s way of generating positive headlines and muddying the waters as to its real business practices?  Despite the fact today’s post was identical to the February announcement, a new round of headlines splashed across multiple websites making it seem like the “news” was new news….Google’s PR folks must be patting themselves on the back.

Google explains Safe Browsing this way:

Google’s Safe Browsing technology examines billions of URLs per day looking for unsafe websites…

When we detect unsafe sites, we show warnings on Google Search and in web browsers.

These unsafe sites fall into two categories, both of which threaten users’ privacy and security:

  • Malware sites contain code to install malicious software onto users’ computers. Hackers can use this software to capture and transmit users’ private or sensitive information.
  • Phishing sites pretend to be legitimate while trying to trick users into typing in their username and password or sharing other private information. Common examples are web pages that impersonate legitimate bank websites or online stores.

Sounds like a positive step against online piracy since malware and deceptive advertising is online piracy’s bread and butter,  right?  WRONG…

Google’s “safe search” warnings are nowhere to be found on piracy websites I checked as part of a little test I conducted today using Google Chrome.

Carol heavily piratedUsing Google search I looked for the recently released film ‘Carol’ using the search terms, “watch carol online.”
What I found was the same old, same old. In typical Google fashion, three out of the top four results lead to pirate websites that offer up free, full pirated copies of the movie.  In addition–contrary to Google’s new “safe browsing” policy–all two of the pirate sites featured embedded and pop-up featuring the very type of deceptive content Google claimed it would slap with warnings. Despite this, nary a Google “warning” to be found on any of these sites.

Google search leads to piracy websites

3 out of 4 top results are for piracy sites that feature malware or Google advertising

Google pirate search results
Pirated copy of Carol with Google AdSense ads

Google warns against visiting scam sites, but continues to send consumers there via its search engine?

What’s even more puzzling is that I Google’s “safe search” initiative is also more talk than action when sites (flagged warnings about “deceptive content”) that are found via its own search engine.

Below is an example from a SolarMovie site which offers up links to pirated movies galore. Amid the pirated movies were sporadic warnings from Google.  If Google is serious about protecting users from malware and phishing scams, why not simply remove these flagged sites from Google search?

solar-movie-deceptive-piracy-site

Of course Google hypocrisy is nothing new.  Google flacks can generate all the fresh headlines they want by reposting old news, but in the end, the story remains the same. The team from Mountain View talk a good game, but in reality, nothing changes.  Google search continues to point the way to pirated content, malware or scams be damned…maybe the safest way to browse is to avoid Google entirely?

Piracy apologists’ convenient lie (of omission) that Hollywood profits means piracy doesn’t matter

Piracy apologists’ convenient lie (of omission) that Hollywood profits means piracy doesn’t matter

by | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy

More reliance on blockbusters means less diversity in film

More reliance on blockbusters means less diversity in film (graphic USC Annenberg)

Yes Virginia, piracy damages both the film industry and its audience

It’s that time of year again, when the piracy apologists pull out their annual canard that Hollywood’s profits provide proof that online piracy doesn’t hurt the film industry.   It’s an assessment that found in this week’s post by Torrent Freak’s editor Ernesto, Pirates Fail to Prevent 38 Billion Box Office Record:

…the MPAA and other groups warn that hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, while the economy is losing billions due to piracy. Illegal downloads, they say, are slowly killing their creative industry.

Interestingly, these stark warnings are not reflected in last year’s box office revenues.

Recent numbers show that the movie industry just broke the magic $11 billion barrier, generating more revenue than ever before at the North American box office. The revenue for 2015 totals $11.3 billion, which is roughly a 9% change compared to last year.

The worldwide grosses also reached an all-time record according to research from Rentrak, which estimates the global grosses at a staggering $38 billion based on data from 25,000 theaters across the globe.

Looks like a no brainer conclusion right?  Not so fast.   While (most) Hollywood studios did make a lot of money in 2015, the truth conveniently omitted from the post in Torrent Freak is that they did so by producing fewer films.  After all, the studios are in the business of making money for their shareholders and to that end–in this age of unchecked piracy–fewer chances can be taken on movies that won’t draw huge crowds.  The Hollywood films that are being made are those that are sure bets to overcome digital theft and still make money.  In 2015, the top 5 films made 20% of the revenue.

Terry Huang explored this trend in a piece on The Black List, The Blockbuster Strategy: Safety Sort of Guaranteed:
The studios have steadily been moving away from midsize movies and focusing instead on fewer, mega-budget movies. In 2006 the seven major studios combined made 187 films. In 2013 those same studios made only 139 films (a decrease of 26%). Those films generated $8.2 billion in 2006 and $8.8 billion in 2013 in real box office revenue domestically (an increase of 6%). More simply, fewer films are sharing more revenue.
…At the end of the day, if you’re a studio and looking to mitigate your overall financial risk, I guess it sort of does make financial sense stick with mega-budget films. So you have permission to greenlight Avatar v. Terminator v. Batman: The Oz Adventures!
This it’s important to drill down and examine the implications of this trend.  Yes, Hollywood shareholders may be doing OK, but with fewer films being produced, fewer people are employed in film production and audiences have fewer options when it comes to what they can see in movie theaters.  There’s a reason that the majority of cineplexes across the land are filled with formulaic, big budget faire.
Harvard Business School professor Anita Elbers, author of Blockbusters: Hit-Making, Risk-Taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment, was profiled in a piece for Harvard Magazine and explained why this focus on big budget films makes sense for Hollywood.

Strategically, the blockbuster approach involves “making disproportionately big investments in a few products designed to appeal to mass audiences,” Elberse explains. “Smart executives bet heavily on a few likely winners. That’s where the big payoffs come from.”“In the movie business, the product is the same price to the consumer regardless of the cost of manufacturing it—whether its production budget is $15 million or $150 million,” he told her. “So it may be counterintuitive to spend more money. But in the end, it is all about getting people to come to the theater. The idea was that movies with greater production value should be more appealing to prospective moviegoers.”

Fast fading are those lower budget films with limited audiences that carry more box office risk.  As noted in an article by Flavorwire’s   How the Death of Mid-Budget Cinema Left a Generation of Iconic Filmmakers MIA:

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when Waters and Lynch were doing their most commercially successful work, it was possible to finance — either independently or via or the studio system — mid-budget films (anywhere from $5 million to $60 million) with an adult sensibility. But slowly, quietly, over roughly the decade and a half since the turn of the century, the paradigm shifted. Studios began to make fewer films, betting big on would-be blockbusters, operating under the assumption that large investments equal large returns. Movies that don’t fit into that box (thoughtful dramas, dark comedies, oddball thrillers, experimental efforts) were relegated to the indies, where freedom is greater, but resources are far more limited. As Mad Men’s Matthew Weiner put it, “Something happened that nobody can make a movie between $500,000 and $80 million. That can’t be possible.”

Let’s look at in another way.  If studios didn’t have to deal with a business model predicated on minimizing the threat posed by online piracy it’s more likely more of these mid-budget films would be made.  Film industry profits should not be considered poison–they provide the means to produce more, and potentially riskier films.  By diminishing this flow of money to potential productions, piracy does indeed erode the overall health of Hollywood.

With more blockbusters comes less diversity

distorted-demographics-film

graphic USC Annenberg

This risk-averse trend toward producing only blockbusters also has an insidious impact on representation in the movies we see.  Just as the number of productions have fallen, so too have the number and quality of roles available to women and minorities.  In an LA Weekly reported on USC Annenberg report Inequality in 700 Popular Films: Examining Portrayals of Gender, Race, & LGBT Status from 2007 to 2014:

Academics analyzed the 100 top-grossing films for 2014 and found that none of of them, save for those with ensemble casts, featured a woman 45 or older. They found only three non-ensemble films that featured minority women.

The percentage of women in speaking roles has actually gone down since 2007, when about 30 percent of films featured speaking women, USC found. In 2014 that percentage is 28.1 percent. That’s about the percentage of films featuring women in sexy attire or at least partially nude. When it comes to men, that figure is 8 percent.

The report says “females function as eye candy” in top-grossing movies.

Women behind the camera aren’t likely to fare much better in an industry focused on the next great blockbuster either.  According to research by San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in TV and Film independent films are where women find the greatest opportunity:

In 2014-15, women comprised 29% of directors working on documentaries and 18% of directors working on narrative features screening at more than 20 high profile film festivals in the United States. These figures stand in stark contrast to the percentage of women directing top grossing films in 2014 (7%).

Looking further at their research its safe to say that as Hollywood become more focused on tent-pole productions to generate profits, women are less likely to find opportunity.  As budgets go up, opportunities go down.

women-top-grossing-film

SD State Center for Study of Women in TV and Film graphic

This lack of diversity extends beyond sex.  According to the Annenberg Study:

The landscape of popular cinema in 2014 remains skewed and stereotypical. Across 700 films and over 30,000 speaking characters from 2007 to present, movies continue to distort the demographic reality of their audience. Film characters are overwhelmingly White and male, despite both population statistics and viewing patterns.

Employment trends behind the camera evidence a similar dearth of diversity. Only five Black directors helmed top movies in 2014, and women were underrepresented by a factor of 5.3 to 1 as directors, writers, and producers in 2014. Further, the 100 top films of 2014 featured no Asian directors. Despite activism, attention, and statements about addressing the issue, Hollywood’s default setting for characters and content creators remains fixed on “status quo.”

The “film industry” is more than just Hollywood

Per usual, piracy apologists as frame their pro-piracy arguments using a David vs. Goliath scenario with Hollywood being Goliath.  Somehow the industry made to be the enemy because it deigns to defend the products it produces from theft.  As part of their construct piracy-apologists propaganda that paint big bad Hollywood as an enemy, conveniently neglect to mention any filmmaking that takes place outside Hollywood.  It’s a convenient omission, but one that undermines the credibility of their thesis that piracy is a victimless crime.

BFI Report 2015

bfi.org.uk

Take film production in the United Kingdom, which boasts a film industry second only to that of the U.S. According to a British Film Institute (BFI) study released last month, UK film production, particularly in the lower budget range has actually fallen.

  • The total filmed entertainment market in the UK in 2014 was worth an estimated £3.8 billion, down from £4.1 billion in 2013.
  • Revenues across all platforms were down compared with 2013 except for digital video which recorded a rise of 35%.
  • Gross revenues for UK film were an estimated £840 million, down from £895 million in 2013.
  • The 2014 market down 26% from the peak. In real terms, film revenues in 2014 were the lowest since 2000.
An even more glaring omission comes with the refusal to acknowledge impact that piracy has on indie film production worldwide.  For the Hollywood blockbusters, millions can be had via the box office, but for independent films with small or no theatrical release, revenue comes via the backend, DVD and digital distribution.  This revenue has been shrinking for both Hollywood and independent producers, and for the latter,  is crucial to paying off production debt and can be the difference-maker as to whether a filmmaker ever makes another film.  It’s here where online piracy and legit sales really do compete head to head.  
Smaller budget films are particularly dependent on this back-end income to recoup production costs.  As I noted in an blog post last summer:

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.

When indie filmmakers lose, so too do audiences

Given that unchecked piracy cannibalizes this much-needed income stream, online piracy does HURT the “film industry” and filmmakers like David Ward who described how online piracy undermined revenue for his film, Balls Out, in a Tumblr post:
I am writing this as a producer of the indie movie “Balls Out” that was just released on June 19th in theaters and VOD. Immediately upon its release, it made its way onto all the top torrent sites in full HD quality. We’re not stupid, we knew that as soon as the movie was out it would be up to download for free online. What we didn’t expect was just how popular it would be on those sites. We’re one of the most pirated movies right now in terms of how many people are currently downloading, and seemingly the only independent film currently on the list… we have a very small theatrical release and have to count on VOD to make our investors’ money back…None of the filmmakers I know are getting rich doing this, they are doing it because they love making movies and entertaining people. It’s unbelievably hard to get any kind of movie made, let alone one worth watching, and if people don’t support the filmmakers doing original work then we’ll be forever stuck watching sequels and spin-offs and sequel spin-offs of tie-ins until the end of time.
Jean Prewitt, head of Independent Film and Television Alliance, puts piracy’s ultimate impact on film production even more succinctly in comments to The Guardian:
What this means to the consumer is not that some producers don’t get rich, it means the product doesn’t get made.”

Let’s not forget that piracy’s cannibalization of back-end revenue streams has also played a hand in forcing Hollywood studios to make sure the movies they produce draw big at the box office the first few weeks in theaters.  Markets that used to serve as a financial cushion for margins is no longer and while digital sales continue to grow, it’s logical to assume that piracy will continue to take a bite out the profit pie.

Of course those who support piracy see things differently.  Torrent Freak’s Ernesto sardonically suggests that perhaps pirates should “up their game” if they really want to create havoc among those whose livelihoods depend on a healthy film industry.

That said, piracy has certainly not destroyed the movie business just yet. There are still plenty of people who are going to the movie theater to pay for their entertainment. Perhaps pirates should up their game?

Piracy TimeBut Piracy isn’t a “game”

Problem is, piracy isn’t a game and Hollywood isn’t an enemy.  It isn’t David v Goliath. It’s not Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest.  Piracy is theft.  Piracy has victims.  It’s a crime that takes a financial and cultural toll.

For those working in the film industry, it’s their livelihoods–and opportunity for advancement–at risk. For consumers, online piracy has quietly eroded both the number and diversity of quality movies to choose from.

So, when piracy apologists crow about Hollywood profits, look past headlines and cherry-picked facts and remember piracy incurs a cost we all pay for.

In the meantime,  last time I checked, industries are allowed to (thrive) and make money off the products they produce.  Why should Hollywood, or any other creative industry, not have the same right?

Ultimately piracy apologists try to rationalize and excuse morally dubious behavior by doing all they can to deflect and obscure the truth.  This latest, routine round of headlines is more of the same.

Copyright Au Courant – Piracy, Popcorn Time and Privacy

Copyright Au Courant – Piracy, Popcorn Time and Privacy

by | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech

movie piracy and popcorn timeLots of news in the copyright, piracy and privacy world of late.  Here’s some worth a look:

First up, this thoughtful piece by Nelson Granados on Forbes.com “How Piracy Is Still Hurting The Filmmakers And Artists You Admire.”  Granados takes direct aim at the fallacy that piracy doesn’t cause damage to Hollywood studios.

Many think naively that studios cannot be hurt too much, because after all, you hear mostly about the movies that make hundreds of millions of dollars. But the reality for many filmmakers is that they often live on the edge, seeking financing to produce quality content, and enduring high uncertainty about whether they will be able to pay off debt and have any profit left. Given the high fixed cost of producing a quality movie, losses from piracy can be the difference between making a profit or not.

He notes that a number of “peer-reviewed” studies quantify this damage.  Bottom line, like any industry, Hollywood depends on making a return on its investment to flourish.  No matter what piracy apologists allege, that’s a basic economic fact.  Granados also touches on the particular vulnerability faced by independent filmmakers.

Most artists struggle to make ends meet as they pursue their creative work with passion and dedication. Piracy may be tipping the next Quentin Tarantino over the financial edge into bankruptcy, and we will all lose.

As I’ve often said, audiences won’t know what we’re missing if it isn’t made.  Piracy’s damage is insidious–and for the public–somewhat invisible. Ultimately it diminishes the quantity (and quality) of film offerings consumers have to choose from.

Here’s a link to Granados’ full article on Forbes. 

Popcorn Time growing stale, but remains alive

Popcorn TimeIn other piracy-related news, the pox that is Popcorn Time rears its ugly head yet again.  According to Torrent Freak, a group of “developers” have launched their own community edition of the piracy platform.  Not surprisingly developers responsible for the new rendition of Popcorn Time rely on well-worn justifications for their thievery:

“Popcorn Time will probably never go away, despite the efforts made by organizations such as BREIN, the MPAA and others. Instead of fighting this great software they should embrace it,” PTCE tells TF.

It appears efforts are being made to quash this new effort, but as of today the site seems to be operational.  Perhaps it would be better if those who love to watch films “embrace” the notion of compensating creators for their work.  Fans of Adele seem to be doing so in record fashion.

Facebook faces further European scrutiny

Facebook privacy

Not really a copyright issue, but it’s always worth paying attention to what’s going on in Europe with regard to the digital economy.  With that in mind…

Max Schrems, an Austrian lawyer and privacy advocate’s battle against Facebook over data privacy concerns gained momentum in October when the European Court of Justice invalidated the safe harbor agreement between the U.S. and Europe that had allowed transfer of personal data between business entities in the U.S. and EU.  With the ruling in hand, Schrems has stepped up his attack against Facebook, filing complaints with data protection authorities  (DPAs) in Ireland, Belgium and Germany.  He outlined his actions in a statement posted on his website:

All complaints suggest a reasonable implementation period, to allow the relevant companies to take all necessary technical and organizational steps to comply with the CJEU judgement. These options may range from moving data to Europe, encrypting data that is stored in the United States or reviewing the corporate structure. Schrems: “Users really don’t have to worry that their screens go dark, but I hope we will see serious restructuring in the background – just like Microsoft has now started to offer more secure data centers in Germany, that are supposedly not subject to US jurisdiction.”

Meanwhile, as Schrems moves forward, the EU and US are busy trying to reach an agreement on a new safe harbor pact that will offer new guidelines on data transfer between companies on both sides of the Atlantic.  It’s important to note that this “safe harbor” should not be confused with the “safe harbor” found in the DMCA so often mentioned in the context of online piracy.