We're not the pirates you're looking for

October 17, 2004 7:01 PM

The inside track: requests for pirate copies of movies (even films you're too busy to see) are not cool here.
posted by scarabic to etiquette/policy at 7:01 PM (18 comments total)

fair cop. although for the record my primary reason for asking wasn't because i would be too busy to see it but rather because i wanted something i could watch and rewatch.
posted by juv3nal at 7:27 PM on October 17, 2004

I am all about pirating stuff (as i'm poor at the moment) but asking for them specifically on askme is kind of... ahem.. asking for it.
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:16 PM on October 17, 2004

I hear ya, juv3nal. It's hard to get a hold of a home copy of a small indie film. That's because no one backs them with the money it takes to do a DVD or home-video release of such films. Pirating them probably worsens that situation. In any case, to echo Keyser: far be it from me to give you the old media piracy lecture in a general sense, just don't do it here.
posted by scarabic at 8:24 PM on October 17, 2004

What about short films in general? I can think of several shorts that I would LOVE to buy on DVD, but they haven't been released as such. What recourse is there, other than piracy?
posted by Vidiot at 8:36 PM on October 17, 2004

I really don't think there is one. I learned a little bit about the film industry helping pull a film festival together this year. Generally, it worked like this:

1) request a preview copy of a film for consideration for inclusion in the festival (it helps if they've heard of you).

2) receive a crappy-quality VHS with an editing stripe

3) if you want to show the film, you buy a "license to screen" it. This cost us from $0 to around $3000 depending on the film. The prices were sensitive to things like: how many seats in the theater where we wanted to show it, how many showings, etc. The high-quality copies were either DVD, 16mm film, or, most often, Beta tape.

People asked me for home copies of several films that we ran, and I couldn't help them. The only way for me to have done it would be to dub one of the screeners. The quality would have been bad, and it just would have felt creepy to do it. It's one thing to skim the top off of big studio profits, and quite another to earfuck a small filmmaker.

If you're really interested in seeing a film, here's what you can do:

1) Write to the filmmakers and see if it's showing anywhere - or request a copy (maybe you'll luck out). Perhaps they're willing to dub you a copy, but expect to pay a lot, like $50+shipping, just for their effort. And that's a best-case scenario with someone really nice who has no licensing obligations.

2) Write to your local public TV station and request they show the film. Public TV exists to raise money and bring you programming. Let them know what you want to see.

3) Wait for some internet-based solution that will make it easy for indie filmmakers to sell/distribute copies online. Currently, anything they can distribute online can be rapidly pirated online. I think a solution will have to wait until that problem can be solved. Maybe filmmakers will take a cue from small-time bands and start home-burning DVDs of their movies. I dunno.
posted by scarabic at 9:02 PM on October 17, 2004

Contact the distribution folks and offer to pay S&H for a DVD. It's worked for me before. There is an email address on the OIOFilm.com site. Rental sites like Greencine offer complilations of shorts as well.
posted by fionab at 9:03 PM on October 17, 2004

You can buy the Oscar shorts as well. Here's one site offering them. Also, subscribe to the film screening email lists from several of your local universities. I've got a mailbox set up to receive them so I'm not bombarded all day, but can check out what's coming to the area. They all show tons of independent, foreign, collections of shorts and other hard-to-find videos and films.
posted by fionab at 9:11 PM on October 17, 2004

Short and indie films are tough to get for the home market. It's mostly because there really isn't any home market to speak of. I speak from experience; I used to own my own video label. I released 12 short films and one feature and took a bath on everything even though when I did manage to get the tapes reviewed (this was pre-dvd), the reviews were stellar. It's a very tough market for a biz to make any money at which means hardly anyone does it.

This series made a good go at it but I don't know if they're still doing it. They managed to put out some excellent films (Riefenstahl's Tag Der Freiheit, Lars [von Trier] From 1-10, Marker's La Jette, Don Hertzfeldt's Lily and Jim, Alain Resnais' Night and Fog, Hickenlooper's Some Folks Call It a Sling Blade, Mr. Resistor, among others from lesser known filmmakers). The discs were pretty cheap as they subsidized themselves by having trailers for blockbusters between films.

I missed the original Ask thread so don't know which film was being sought, but if it's ever been on video and is now out of print, you can probably purchase a bootleg thru a place like Super Happy Fun or Revenge is My Destiny (guess the urls). Their links section leads to some healthy competition.

Scarabic suggested contacting the filmmakers. I'd second that but unless you're very enthusiastic or connected to a fest/channel/distro, don't be surprised if you're told no.

I was consideing contacting Nicholas Gurewitch about purchasing a DVD of The Liars but haven't done it yet. It's films like his (and short filmmakers Chel White, Alan Heifetz, Matt Sesow, and documentarians Jason Tan and Jeff Stephenson's Flyerman*) that make me wish I was fluid enough financially to tackle it again with DVD.

* They be friends.
posted by dobbs at 10:10 PM on October 17, 2004

Wait for some internet-based solution that will make it easy for indie filmmakers to sell/distribute copies online. Currently, anything they can distribute online can be rapidly pirated online.

Better to make some money over no money. Since selling a film online has nearly 99% ROI, even sales of 1 are enough to make it worth the bother.

Far be it from small time film makers to end up with an internet cult classic that spawns spontaneous paid theatre screenings, though... (hmmm)
posted by shepd at 10:43 PM on October 17, 2004

selling a film online has nearly 99% ROI

Well, not really. I don't think the biz heads are willing to risk the $2000 film festival sale here and there to rake in $14 on two internet download sales that instantly go Kazaa out the wazoo. If you've exhausted all markets for your product, then yes, online sales can be a last resort. But even then, it costs something to set up the site, host it, license the codec/streaming server or whatever... Someone's got to front at least some cash for that, and if they don't see a compelling reason to risk their money, nothing will happen. Would you take $2500 of your own money and try to make it back plus a worthwile profit selling a film online as a download? Good luck breaking even, much less getting anything extra for your time and trouble. You're better off putting that money into something else. And there's the rub.
posted by scarabic at 11:01 PM on October 17, 2004

I don't think the biz heads are willing to risk the $2000 film festival sale here and there to rake in $14 on two internet download sales that instantly go Kazaa out the wazoo.

Of all things, I don't think that would happen. We see plenty of bootleg sales of unavailable to the public items even where they're banned, like on eBay. If something is popular and profitable enough to risk permanent suspension and possible jail time, it's clear it's valuable enough to sell "for real".

I highly doubt that theatre ticket sales would do poorly, especially if the internet download were to cost more than a ticket (easily done).

But even then, it costs something to set up the site, host it, license the codec/streaming server or whatever...

Well, the CODEC/streaming server is free, and the server costs are circa $99 a month.

Anyone in business would pretty much agree, if you can't consider a $99 investment "free", you need to quit being in business.

Would you take $2500 of your own money and try to make it back plus a worthwile profit selling a film online as a download?

That's a bit steep. $99 for hosting, and the rest is you and about $100 in books. If you don't have a clue, let's up that to $250 in books. If you aren't willing to invest $449 in a venture, then it's nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Just my 2 cents on the issue. The idea of "We won't put XYZ on the internet because it will get pirated" is tantamount to "We won't make new pharmaceuticals because someone will just make a generic version". It just doesn't jive with economic indicators.
posted by shepd at 11:28 PM on October 17, 2004

Reality check: we wealthy* patrons of the arts who pirate these DVDs but not those DVDs because our delicate sense of artistic justice requires it represent less than 5% of the media consuming world. The other 95% doesn't give a righteous FUCK about any movie maker's profits, big studio or indie; they want to watch a movie, they take what's a hand and pay no more than they have to. While we with the luxury to tend the cinema terarium, fostering an environment of false security for independent distributors with our surplus cash, the rest of the world comprises the drive that will MAKE tomorrow's distribution technology happen.

The soultion is revolution. The current distribution model has to die, and protectionism is not only prolonging the death, it has no chance of working. How long are we going to continue to prop up this bloated, diseased industry for the sake of a few straggling indie films a year. Are we afraid that when the big cash drops out of the market, no one is going to make film anymore? Have more faith in the independents, folks. We're like roaches with cheap DV cameras. We're going to say our bit, no matter what.

* If you're reading this on a computer--particularly your OWN computer--then you're wealthy on a global scale. Not to mention if you think dropping $30-50 on a DVD is anywhere near sane.

** Notwithstanding, scarabic is right that askme remains a stupid and disrespectful place to go asking for w@r3z.
posted by squirrel at 7:34 AM on October 18, 2004

The idea of "We won't put XYZ on the internet because it will get pirated" is tantamount to "We won't make new pharmaceuticals because someone will just make a generic version". It just doesn't jive with economic indicators.

Actually, that is exactly how pharmaceutical companies do business. They only develop compounds they can patent, and they rush compounds through development and trials so they can have the maximum amount of sales time before patent protection expires. Even if that means people end up taking a drug whose safety profile has not been established for long-term use - an increasingly common situation in this age of management of chronic conditions. They go on to make tiny tweaks to their drugs and make line extensions that they can use to sell newly patented compounds while the generic manufacturers undercut the price of the original formulation.

Pharmaceutical companies do not care to market drugs no longer under patent protection, and they do not care to develop drugs that don't have enormous markets, unless they have reason to believe that development of the compound will yield an entry into other markets or other development opportunities (or are getting government support to make an "orphan drug" - a drug targeted as a small market). As a pharma executive said early in the AIDS epidemic, for example, "One million [people with AIDS] isn't a market that's exciting. Sure it's growing, but it's not asthma."

Also, I believe the word you are looking for is "jibe" (to be in accord with) as opposed to "jive" (to cajole, mislead; to talk nonsense), but then again, maybe not.

As for the question at hand, scarabic and dobbs gave wonderful answers that would have, I think, been most appropriate in the ask.me thread itself, now deleted. I wonder if the thread might have been more useful as an archive both of the inclination it represented and the very welcome perspective and suggestions given by scarabic's and dobbs's responses.
posted by caitlinb at 7:55 AM on October 18, 2004

I had a feeling you'd link to a free codec, shepd ;)

All I can say is look at the current state of affairs, including the long list of failed ventures mentioned in this thread. Considering the way things actually play out, are you still sure it's a dirt-simple goldmine? Or is it possible that the dominant business model in the industry doesn't have room for it? I'm not saying someone couldn't make it work. If we're talking pie-in-the-sky, sure. I'm just guessing at why no one is doing it right now.

Regarding the generic drug analogy: it doesn't apply. The generic drug situation is regulated. This means businesses can predict how it will behave. This means they can budget, forecast, and hit a predictible profit for their board / shareholders. That's what matters, not necessarily how infinite the gold mine is.

Similarly, you can't predict the viral spread of an internet download, the piracy factor. Different films have entirely different pirate-circuit activity, but pretty much all generic drugs have to meet the same standards.
posted by scarabic at 8:45 AM on October 18, 2004

update: i emailed them and awesomely enough got a response. apparently a dvd will be available from the site by the end of november: yipee!
posted by juv3nal at 5:26 PM on October 18, 2004

I had a feeling you'd link to a free codec, shepd ;)

You know me! Go Ghetto or GO HOME! :-D
posted by shepd at 8:01 PM on October 18, 2004

yay! glad news
posted by scarabic at 8:07 PM on October 18, 2004

If you download this, you're stealing.
posted by squirrel at 8:12 AM on October 19, 2004