Michael Moore Admits He Doesn't Care About International Downloads, But He Has To Pretend To
from the download-away dept
We were a bit surprised recently when the news came out that lawyers representing Michael Moore were making the rounds concerning international downloads of his latest documentary, Slacker Uprising. Moore had decided to give the movie away free online, and given his past statements about having no problem with folks sharing a movie online, it seemed out of place to complain about any sharing that didn't just happen in the US and Canada.
Now it appears that Moore himself has taken the initiative to explain, and the answer is effectively that he doesn't care -- but he has to pretend to, because he only holds the rights for the US and Canada. In a note to the site TorrentFreak, he wrote:
Now it appears that Moore himself has taken the initiative to explain, and the answer is effectively that he doesn't care -- but he has to pretend to, because he only holds the rights for the US and Canada. In a note to the site TorrentFreak, he wrote:
"What do you think I'm up to? I know it may not be obvious to most, but I think you guys get it. I only own the US and Canadian rights. So my hands are tied. But this is the 21st century. What are 'geographical rights'?"He then went on to point to the silliness of trying to prevent fans from sharing a movie:
"I'll say it for the hundredth time: If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?"I'm not always a fan of his movies (though I do find them entertaining), but it's nice to see another moviemaker recognizing how counterproductive it is to try to stop file sharing, when embracing it has many more benefits.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
that's flawed thinking
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: that's flawed thinking
How is that really different than downloading a PDF file of the book and reading it when you feel like? Either way, depending on who you are you aren't paying for the benefit of reading it.
The only time its different for practical purposes is if you BOTH are reading it at the same time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: that's flawed thinking
When you download a book, you can make multiple copies and they can all exist at the same time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yon's got it!
A book is a finite, tangible good. It took the printer, publisher, distributor, retailer etc time and resources to print/sell that EXACT copy that you now hold. When you give it away, you no longer have a copy to read yourself (regardless of the fact that all the data is theoretically in your brain).
Don't confuse this with digital media. Digital media costs no resources (short of some electricity) to copy. Taking an avi file and making 1,000,000 copies is no more resource intensive than making one copy. Giving a copy of that avi file away does not restrict my ability to watch the movie. And lastly, once the original movie is created and stored digitally, it does NOT require a printer, publisher, distributor, and retailer to get the copies out. All it takes is a download link.
I'm all for free and open distribution of digital books! But I would never use this example to support my argument, it's just going to confuse people!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yon's got it!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yon's got it!
Bottom line? You have to return that book to the library, you only borrowed it; you do not get to keep a copy of it yourself.
If I get a pdf ebook, I can make a copy for you, and we both have a copy, and so on. That's the difference, we both get to keep a copy of the good! That's why using an example of a TANGIBLE good to argue against copyright on DIGITAL goods should be an obvious non-sequitor!
I am NOT arguing for or against copyright, I am NOT telling anybody that copying is right or wrong (just that I am for it). I am ONLY indicating that trying to use the example of a printed and bound book to support and argument against digital copyright is only going to confuse the issue! Obviously I was right.
"If I buy a book and read it, and then give you the book to read, I have broken no laws. Why is that not true for all media?" Because, Mr Moore, when you give the book away you don't have a copy to read anymore!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yon's got it!
To paraphrase Cory Doctorow, that's a feature not a bug.
Cory Doctorow on why he gives away his books. I realize this doesn't entirely apply to movies but technology has changed, and so must business models.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahh, but to the point
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
counterproductive
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony.
Through ignorance/stupidity (duh what? the internet is global now?) those rights were devalued. By disclaiming all responsibility to placate an audience he's effectively saying caveat emptor to whoever holds them now and assuming some cash was involved, he just became an example subject for one of his own documentaries.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This film is interesting to watch (the performance by Eddy Vedder of a Cat Stevens Song is worth the time to download it.) It certainly isn't in the same league as bowling for Columbine. I would say it's an interesting message as you (I live in Canada) get closer to the election and an advertisement for MM.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Moore is ole school
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have to say that Michael Moore has not come around to the techdirt position, Techdirt was founded on Michael Moores position.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Profit Density
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did Michael Moore sell the internat'l rights, then??
In other words, how come Moore owns only the U.S. and Canadian rights to his own movie? To whom did he sell the other rights, and was that sell premised on a promise that Michael Moore made but now prefers not to keep? If he had no intention of keeping the promise, why did he go ahead and make it anyway?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment