by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jan 4th 2010 1:41am
There really isn't that much new in this recent article in Time Magazine about indie film makers releasing their movies for free online. The article covers some of the more well-known cases of filmmakers doing so. But what's interesting is to see this in such a mainstream publication like Time. Now, since we've already discussed most of the examples used in the article, I know what the critics will say immediately: that none of these count because they weren't huge multi-million dollar successes like Avatar. But, of course, that's the wrong comparison. These are indie filmmakers, and the comparison should be to where they would likely be right now if they had not released the film for free online. In most cases, it seems quite clear that they would have a lot less attention, a lot fewer people having seen the movie, and -- for those who implemented smart business models to go with the free release -- would have made a lot less money.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Struggling Canadian News Agencies Ask Government For A 'Google Tax'
- You Have To Distort The Facts Pretty Badly To Argue That Google & Facebook Are Worse For Consumers Than AT&T
- Elton John, Anti-YouTube Crusader, Partners With YouTube For Public Music Competition
- China's Richest Man Tells MPAA's Chris Dodd To Tell Donald Trump To Be Nice To China... Or Else
- Short Sighted Newspaper Association Asks Trump To Whittle Down Fair Use, Because It Hates Google