Jessica’s Techdirt Profile

lilycarver

About Jessica




Jessica’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 14th, 2012 @ 6:50am

    Copyright , google etc.

    Hmm people who steal certain things are accused of "robbery" or "larceny" not "theft" so people who steal films are accused of "copyright infringment" It IS theft to those of who work in film. I have to laugh at the idea google et al are not the main force behind this. They did spend 30 million to fight it.I recently checked several illegal download sites and surprise they were filled with GOOGLE ads. I don't even want to get into youtube where pirates are now literally claiming someone pulled down a trailer to entice someone to link to illegal download site. Google is by far the biggest enabler of piracy and they are well aware of how much they make on it and will do what it takes to protect it.

    The amount of misinformation was staggering starting with the basic claim that SOPA allowed US sites to be shut down (in fact they already can be) and then mysteriously the words "Foreign infringing site" which is the key phrase in the act literally disappeared from most "discussions" (sorry I was not on this site when I presume it was discussed). How does the key phrase in a controversial law disappear? I was pretty stunned by that one.

    Like I have said, you can argue if it is practical or possible to stop pirates, my view is you can put a dent in them which is what the business needs to survive. I don't think anyone here is directly involved with filmmaking or distributing. You are the ones throwing around ridiculous stuff like new delivery models. Short of streaming the films for free and offering a BONUS for watching them there is absulutely nothing the film community can do "improve" the delivery model. The people illegally downloading movies do not want to pay.

    Please tell me how it is a "lie" that this hurts the film community? I live it every day. If whatever product you made
    where suddenly being stolen and given away for free you really think it would not effect your business?

    If I seem a tad angry it is because I see the reality of it so it is not an academic discussion.

  • Feb 13th, 2012 @ 10:09am

    New Business Models?

    Sorry but this is the one that kills me. THERE IS NO MODEL FOR THEFT. People do not care. They will not even spend $8.00 a month on Netflix. Small companies in particular have tried every method to get their work out and be paid something for it but it is not working and shutting down pirate sites in Russia & China does not upset me. The irony is of course the big enablers are Google, Yahoo etc. I go to a site offering links to illegal downloads and of course it is FILLED with Google ads and even Netflix. The great myth is that evil rights holders bought politicians for SOPA when in fact google spent 30 million far more than studios combined to defeat it.
    I know there are no perfect solutions but as someone who has their work stolen every minute, I have no problem trying to shut down pirate sites particularly those outside the US. I know it is a game of whack a mole but you would be surprised how many people who download pirate material get discouraged by an extra click or two.

    It is NOT a choice between a "free" internet and evil rights holders. The ability to download a copy of the new Batman film is not essential to free speech or a free internet. Pirates can be taken down without impinging on
    any legitimate rights.

  • Feb 13th, 2012 @ 7:43am

    (untitled comment) (as jessica)

    Sorry I can not resist responding to the absurd claim that the technical and artistic quality of films is somehow much better than say the 20s. Among serious film buffs 1927 is considered the peek year of films. They reached their height in artistic brilliance before being set back by sound. I am not saying many great films where not made after, but silent films are extraordinary and while largely unoticed they have been hit very badly by piracy. A few years ago with the combination of the two most hated pieces of copyright legislation ( The GATT treaty) and the Sonny Bono copyright extension, led to an absolute paradise in the quality and quantity of silent films made available on VHS, DVD,broadcast etc. European archives opened their vaults because they could now recoup at least some of the costs of restorations, studios, especially Warner Bros made their vast silent film libraries available. Criterion, Kino, Milestone and others put out wonderful collections of often rare silent films. In the last few years and increasing at alarming speed, this is drying up because piracy had made it impossible to even come close to covering costs especially for the small companies. I did support GATT because European countries had lost copyright for decades in the US leading to a whole lot of horrid looking washed out classics, I felt the Sonny Bono law was wrong but in the law of unintended consequences it did not lead to fewer films being available (at least in decent copies) but more. Sorry for all the "inside baseball" details but silent films are on average far better than the techno crap released today and they had a flowering moment thanks in large part to dreaded copyright laws.

    I work on this stuff on a daily basis and when you see film buffs desperately trying to make important films available from silent to THIS IS NOT A FILM, it is depressing when so many people (and trust me I do not mean here) think it is fine to just steal them and claim they have done no harm because after all they were not going to pay anyway.

  • Feb 12th, 2012 @ 4:29pm

    Re: Sadly Indies are in far worse position (as jessica)

    Sorry I do not know why that last comment came out anonymous but I assume you realize it was me.

  • Feb 12th, 2012 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re: It actually does cost money to make and distribute any film (as jessica)

    Sorry this is the first time I have been on the site, but as a practical matter there really is no way do deal with piracy without going after the pirates who are (mostly)outside the US. Please let me know what would be effective against the vast numbers of people who do just want to get anything on the internet for free. I have one friend whose company deals exclusively in rare mostly silent films restored by archives and digitized and scored. One day he found every film in his collection available for downloading from a Russian Pirate site ( which to add insult to injury claimed they were legal and they definately were not). It is very possible he will simply go out of business and films like the ones he made available will remain unrestored and unavailable. There just is now "model" for dealing with films in particular when they are widely stolen other than to go directly after the pirates. I am not naive enough to believe it would go away but it would make a dent which is the margin many indies need to survive.
    However if you can think of another way to dent overseas piracy I am all ears.

  • Feb 12th, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    sorry about the double post

    Can not figure out how to delete it

  • Feb 12th, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    It actually does cost money to make and distribute any film

    I am working on the distribution of THIS IS NOT A FILM in the US. We are currently booking theatrical and non theatrical shows around the country from New York to Nashville. I have worked in indie films for 25 years and have a special interest in classic and silent films. Mr. Panahi like any other filmmaker needs to eat (not to mention legal bills and high bail) as do those of us working to get his film out there for people to see for real, to be reviewed, written about and discussed. I get a little tired of everyone thinking stealing films is just a way to stick it to Warner Bros & Sony. Independent film is in fact being hit far worse. We don't have a 20 million opening weekend for a cushion. It is not about "greed" or outmoded "models" Netflix is $8.00 if you wait a few months but pirates cannot even be bothered to settle for that. It also not about the term of copyright as 99% of stuff being ripped off is made within the last 28 years ( the first term of copyright). The stealing of older films is actually even more destructive as it kills any ability to make and distribute high quality versions. Companies like Criterion, Kino and Milestone will put out far fewer older films and only a trickle of silents ( my favorites) because they cannot make back what they spend.

    As for THIS IS NOT A FILM. It was partly shot on an iPhone and partly on HDCAM and Mr. Panahi is not the director because that would violate his sentence, his colleague Mojtaba Mirtahmasb shot the film and was later jailed for it ( he is out on bail but facing a stiff prison sentence).

    I wonder how all of you would feel if your work was routinely stolen, you could not make a living and people told you that you had no right to be expect to be paid for what you did, it should be enough that anyone wanted to steal it.

  • Feb 12th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    It actually does cost money to make and distribute any film

    I am working on the distribution of THIS IS NOT A FILM in the US. We are currently booking theatrical and non theatrical shows around the country from New York to Nashville. I have worked in indie films for 25 years and have a special interest in classic and silent films. Mr. Panahi like any other filmmaker needs to eat (not to mention legal bills and high bail) as do those of us working to get his film out there for people to see for real, to be reviewed, written about and discussed. I get a little tired of everyone thinking stealing films is just a way to stick it to Warner Bros & Sony. Independent film is in fact being hit far worse. We don't have a 20 million opening weekend for a cushion. It is not about "greed" or outmoded "models" Netflix is $8.00 if you wait a few months but pirates cannot even be bothered to settle for that. It also not about the term of copyright as 99% of stuff being ripped off is made within the last 28 years ( the first term of copyright). The stealing of older films is actually even more destructive as it kills any ability to make and distribute high quality versions. Companies like Criterion, Kino and Milestone will put out far fewer older films and only a trickle of silents ( my favorites) because they cannot make back what they spend.

    As for THIS IS NOT A FILM. It was partly shot on an iPhone and partly on HDCAM and Mr. Panahi is not the director because that would violate his sentence, his colleague Mojtaba Mirtahmasb shot the film and was later jailed for it ( he is out on bail but facing a stiff prison sentence).

    I wonder how all of you would feel if your work was routinely stolen, you could not make a living and people told you that you had no right to be expect to be paid for what you did, it should be enough that anyone wanted to steal it.