File Sharing Sites Team Up To Help Promote Indie Films

from the no-legitimate-purpose? dept

While some continue to insist that there’s nothing good or legal that comes from file sharing sites, many content creators who have embraced those sites have found them to be wonderful tools for distribution and promotion. Now, it looks like a bunch of them are teaming up to do even more. Mininova, The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, Miro, Vuze and Frostwire have all agreed to work with a new project called Vodo, which will help promote indie films. Filmmakers can offer their films through Vodo and get promoted on the various file sharing sites — and the system is designed to let people easily donate. While I’m not a huge fan of a pure “donation” business model, it should be interesting to see how Vodo evolves over time. Certainly, it could be a valuable tool to indie filmmakers who recognize that obscurity is a much bigger threat to their efforts than piracy.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: frostwire, isohunt, mininova, miro, the pirate bay, vodo, vuze

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “File Sharing Sites Team Up To Help Promote Indie Films”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No, this is NOT what the labels fear. The labels are concerned with file distribution via P2P of content that has not been authorized for such distribution.

Before you rail and call them dinosaurs, bear in mind that an entire industry has been built in conformance with long established rules defined by law. As a consequence, binding contract proliferate on a multinational basis, and due deferrence must be paid to such contracts. Perhaps as these contracts wind down changes will be in the offing, but until then these contracts exert considerable influence on the wiggle room available to labels.

Just like a large ship cannot change direction on a dime, the same is true of large companies. The fact change may take more time than some people demand (I want it NOW) is no valid reason to ignore our system of laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You sound like the medical industry or some other industry who always promises the world and delivers nothing. They promise things (ie: laws or technology, etc…) will eventually benefit society but they demand more time and resources (ie: monopoly rents) and they keep demanding to maintain these things and that it will pay off for the public. But guess what? It never does. They keep asking for more time or they keep asking the government for more money claiming it will pay off. Never does. No cures, no nothing, and when something small does develop they get a monopoly on it and overcharge. But they keep promising eventual change for the better. No, we want change now. Remove the patents NOW and remove the laws that benefit corporations at public expense NOW. Not next week, not next year, NOW. Because otherwise you would ask for infinite extensions and things would only get worse and worse for the public in the mean time as you find more ways to exploit them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“The fact change may take more time than some people demand (I want it NOW) is no valid reason to ignore our system of laws.”

If it were up to them change would never happen and we would still be in the stone age. We can’t hinder progress just because it threatens the profit margins of rich and powerful people who want to continue to make money without doing any work. That’s nonsense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, we want change NOW!!! You want change NEVER. You want to turn the internet into the nonsense mainstream media has turned into so that change would never ever happen or so that all change would be uniformly to the benefit of rich and powerful entities at public expense. NO. That’s not the kind of change we want. ADAPT OR DIE. But don’t stifle progress just because you don’t want to change. Yes, it may require that you actually do WORK instead of turning the public into your slave where you pay artists virtually nothing and get paid a fortune for doing nothing. TOUGH. That needs to change, NOW, like it or not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Before you rail and call them dinosaurs, bear in mind that an entire industry has been built in conformance with long established rules defined by law.”

Laws that are put in place because they, and others like them, lobbied for it in them first place KNOWING darn well that they are bad for society but not caring because they are too selfish to care (and that hasn’t changed).

“but until then these contracts exert considerable influence on the wiggle room available to labels.”

Well tough, we can’t prevent laws from changing for the better just because two parties might have a contract based on old laws. This argument could be used to prevent just about any law from changing and based on this laws would never change.

“No, this is NOT what the labels fear.”

You’re either lying or deluded.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“The fact change may take more time than some people demand (I want it NOW) is no valid reason to ignore our system of laws.”

If we ignored/changed our system of laws NOW change will happen NOW, in the amount of time that people demand (it will not take more time than what people demand). The fact that you may not like the change because it may mean you have to actually work to make money instead of making it from monopoly rents off of the back of artists and others who worked hard while you did nothing is no reason for us not to change.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Just like a large ship cannot change direction on a dime, the same is true of large companies.

I love how IP maximalists make this argument when discussing copyright… but the second you bring up patents, they claim that as soon as a disruptive innovation comes along, these big companies will “steal” the idea and run with it.

So which is it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Then they turn around and say “With secrecy, the one who came up with the idea would develop the product completely, then bring it to market, and the other company might take 12-24 months to catch up” ( ) though if it were up to them they would require twenty years to catch up (since patents last that long).

Then they disregard the first mover advantage only when they think that disregarding it helps their pro intellectual property position but then they turn around and claim that 12 – 24 months is too long (those 12 – 24 months support the first mover advantage) to wait for everyone to catch up (despite the fact they want 20 years) when they think that helps their position.

Intellectual property maximists can’t even make up their stupid minds, they contradict themselves left and right and they are just trying to come up with any excuse, no matter how lame and false, to promote their position and the only ones that believe them are our bribed government who then impose ridiculous laws on the masses. and despite the fact that the majority of the people don’t seem to like the RIAA and just want them to go out of business because of their corrupt practice the government still serves their interest at public expense ( )even when the RIAA contradicts itself ( ). Why are these people allowed to make a mockery out of justice like this?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To even suggest I am a “maximalist” is just plain wrong, as you should well know. Criticizing your understanding of substantive copyright law does not a “maximalist” make.

As for your comment re patents, you obviously have me confused with someone else.

As for ships changing direction, apparently your experience dealing with multinational contracts is somewhat limited. At times it seems almost as if you advocate the unilateral breach of contracts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Heck, the RIAA can’t even update their website.

“”The RIAA lists its member labels on their website [1]. However, their website lists not only includes RIAA labels but non-RIAA labels that are distributors that report to the RIAA. The site is outdated and has not been updated since 2003.””

(Aug 21st, 2009 @ 10:21am)

This has nothing to do with the lie that “it’s not good if change happens too fast” (I never seen them argue that when the change benefits them at public expense). It’s an issue of they don’t want any change that benefits the public, they want to maintain the laws that benefit them at public expense and they want change that makes the laws more beneficial to them at public expense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

But the fact is that you intellectual property maximists aren’t interested in the truth of your argument. As you have demonstrated over and over with countless completely retarded and often contradictory arguments here on techdirt (see Oct 16th, 2009 @ 7:22am) all you’re interested in is coming up with some excuse, no matter how lame and false, to promote your interests at public expense.

Anonymous Coward says:

I also like this one

“Us Now follows the fate of Ebbsfleet United, a football club owned and run by its fans; Zopa, a bank in which everyone is the manager; and Couch Surfing, a vast online network whose members share their homes with strangers.”

Could the monopoly over mainstream media that the government has unethically given to the status quo in the world of sports (where they have gotten so powerful thanks to their lobbying efforts that they prevent sports players and news media from discussing certain issues and they can assert intellectual property on anything that happens during their game) be over? Mark my words, evil people are working endlessly to take away our rights and control us and to destroy any bit of consumer surplus and turn it into producer surplus and if we don’t stand up for what’s right our rights will be taken away.

Back in the days no one would have thought the airwaves would be controlled the way they are and look at how bad things have gotten. Look how bad intellectual property laws have gotten (ie: they now last way too long). Just about everything the government does is to benefit the rich and the powerful at public expense (from the FCC to the FDA to the USTPO to taxi cab medallions). The government creates huge barriers to entry when it comes to telco/cableco companies and they regulate the airwaves to benefit rich corporations at public expense and as a result important issues and viewpoints/arguments are censored while we are fed almost nothing but lies and commercials and cable is completely overly priced. The reason for this? Our unwillingness to stand up for what’s right. If we don’t stand up for what’s right the Internet will turn into the nonsense that cable television and public airwaves have turned into. Not only must we stand to resist this but we must stand to overturn the existing laws that benefit only rich corporations at public expense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Let me explain how they got to control public airwaves. Back when public airwaves had no regulation it was more of a communication tool. Now the corporations can’t just come in and steal them because it would lead to a huge backlash through the airwaves. So what do they do? Well, first they claim there is some need to regulate them somehow and they say that, in order to ensure it’s still used to promote free speech, they’ll ensure a certain amount of competition. But this is the trap. At first they ensure a certain amount of competition and, while some people complain, it’s a small incremental step towards the nonsense that we have today and so most people don’t protest too heavily (think of the old sain, if you put a frog in boiling water he jumps out. But if you put it in warm water and slowly heat it it eventually boils to death. They slowly take away the airwaves as a communication medium so that eventually important issues get censored). Eventually, when people get used to it and the airwaves are now controlled by specific entities so it’s harder for anyone to use them as a communication tool to discuss how controlling the airwaves is bad, they allow for less and less competition. As there is less competition, the existing status quo has no interest in discussing how they’re taking over the airwaves and how unethical their behavior is, so it’s out of sight out of mind, until you eventually end up with the nonsense you have today.

Not only must we prevent them from doing this to the Internet but we must overturn the laws that give rich corporations exclusive control over the airwaves to use them in their interest at public expense.

Ciro Faienza says:

Have to say, I think the success of this venture will depend less on the business model they use and more on the films that are selected for promotion. The real art in digital culture is the art of curating, of sifting through the mass and selecting the elements worthy of a groundswell. Bad curating has caused major problems for Hollywood (no matter whatever else they blame it on.)

I should also say that I am not inclined to trust a vox populi system, wherein users vote a film up or down to determine what is worthy of promotion. This sets the bar down around the lowest common denominator. I want people with excellent taste selecting the films. We can only wait and see if the Vodo team has it or not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Or perhaps a combination of systems, they can select “experts” with taste who give it a rating that they post on the site and there can be a separate rating where people vote. Then again, the ratings might influence each other, some people might vote a movie good because the alleged experts deem it good or the experts might vote it good (or bad) because the people voted it good (or bad). But this does assume that people can’t think for themselves and will blindly vote based on how others vote, a view I do not hold.

1DandyTroll says:

Re: Re:

Since when did all those services become illegal? No court, at least in Europe has never ruled on the subject, prolly because all the media industry backed services that are utilizing p2p and even torrent-technology. Not to mention Skype and Microsoft.

And TPB went on an internet hopping trip ’cause of bogus legal threats to various samllish access suppliers, and of course due to censoring in Holland after some even more bogus legal proceedings. Still they were only down for a very short time at times for most, apparently.

Jamie King (user link) says:

Re: a nice play by TPB

Sorry, was just reading these comments and came across this. I promise you VODO is not a play by TPB. It’s a project that rose naturally out of the STEAL THIS FILM series. VODO is about working with creators to maximise the benefits of P2P distribution and filesharing for them. Pirate Bay is a partner though, and we’re delighted to have them on board!

Cheers, J.

Anonymous Coward says:

re: comment 16

Right, because everyone knows that legal and illegal activities being performed by the same entity are impossible to parse. It’s just like how if a guy robs a bank and then eats a sandwich, suddenly you can’t tell he robbed a bank because eating a sandwich is a perfectly legitimate activity. It’s a pretty clever disguise.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...