Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies The Internet

Hollywood Studios Fuming Over Indie Studio Deal With BitTorrent 187

Posted by Soulskill
from the steam-shooting-from-ears dept.
silentbrad sends this quote from TheWrap: "'It's a deal with the devil,' one studio executive [said]. 'Cinedigm is being used as their pawn.' Cinedigm announced this weekend that it would offer the first seven minutes of the Emily Blunt-Colin Firth indie Arthur Newman exclusively to BitTorrent users, which number up to 170 million people.... Hollywood studios have spent years and many millions of dollars to protect their intellectual property and worry that by teaming up with BitTorrent, Cinedigm has embraced a company that imperils the financial underpinnings of the film business and should be kept at arm's length. 'It's great for BitTorrent and disingenuous of Cinedigm,' said the executive. 'The fact of the matter is BitTorrent is in it for themselves, they're not in it for the health of the industry.' Other executives including at Warner Brothers and Sony echoed those comments, fretting that Cinedigm had unwittingly opened a Pandora's box in a bid to get attention for its low-budget release. ... 'Blaming BitTorrent for piracy is like blaming a freeway for drunk drivers, ' Jill Calcaterra, Cinedigm's chief marketing officer said. 'How people use it can be positive for the industry or it can hurt the industry. We want it help us make this indie film successful.' ... 'We'll be working with all of [the studios] one day,' [Matt Mason, BitTorrent's vice president of marketing] said. 'It's really up to them how quickly they come to the table and realize we're not the villain, we're the heroes.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hollywood Studios Fuming Over Indie Studio Deal With BitTorrent

Comments Filter:
  • by d00m.wizard (1226664) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:13PM (#43562741)
    really?
    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:20PM (#43562799)
      I'm astonished that the studio executives own intestines didn't spring forth and strangle the man for such blatant hypocrisy. I'm astonished that politicians aren't on television right now saying "Yeah, that's some pot/kettle 'black' shit right there. I'm astonished any reporter he was talking to didn't kick him in the balls. I mean, I probably would have done all those things. Simultaneously in fact.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:25PM (#43562847)

        That's simply because gutless worms have no intestines.

      • by KiloByte (825081)

        Yeah, that's some pot/kettle 'black'

        More like pot calling the refrigerator black.

      • I'm astonished that the studio executives own intestines didn't spring forth and strangle the man for such blatant hypocrisy. I'm astonished that politicians aren't on television right now saying "Yeah, that's some pot/kettle 'black' shit right there. I'm astonished any reporter he was talking to didn't kick him in the balls. I mean, I probably would have done all those things. Simultaneously in fact.

        That's a television show, all to itself, if you can actually pull it off without hurting yourself. I'd DVR that.... Or maybe D/L the torrent if I forgot. ...Shit, even if you do get hurt, the audience would be mesmerized...

        MES-MER-IZED!

      • by Raenex (947668)

        I'm astonished that the studio executives own intestines didn't spring forth and strangle the man for such blatant hypocrisy.

        I don't see it as hypocrisy. Did the studios ever claim to be looking out for the consumer? Their concern is the "industry", always has been, and that's what their concern is here. You can debate if their tactics are hurting the industry more than helping, but I don't doubt their motivations.

      • by Luckyo (1726890)

        This is on the level of "black hole calling kettle black" at this point.

        "Health of the industry". Good one.

    • by AlphaWolf_HK (692722) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:23PM (#43562823)

      The Screen Actors Guild is really uptight about making sure that every actor everywhere is in their union, to the point of fining its members if they perform in the same piece as an actor that isn't part of that union. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to kill this either, namely because indie studios might be more likely to stay away from that union because they can't afford to pay what any of its members demand.

      • by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:27PM (#43562863) Journal

        The Screen Actors Guild is really uptight about making sure that every actor everywhere is in their union, to the point of fining its members if they perform in the same piece as an actor that isn't part of that union. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to kill this either, namely because indie studios might be more likely to stay away from that union because they can't afford to pay what any of its members demand.

        If that leads to a series of entertaining films coming out that don't contain any members of the Screen Actors Guild, they're really going to be up shit creek.

        • Film industry is going to go redundant sooner or later, bittorrent as a distribution channel is already mature, stuff like blender is maturing. How long before a talented bunch of individuals are capable of making high quality movies without the industries backing.

          • Re:Matter of time (Score:5, Informative)

            by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday April 26, 2013 @10:07PM (#43563905) Homepage Journal

            How long before a talented bunch of individuals are capable of making high quality movies without the industries backing.

            What? You haven't seen Star Wreck? [starwreck.com] Hilarious and better than half the dreck from hollywood. And it's a free download! DUDE!!!!

          • by schnell (163007)

            How long before a talented bunch of individuals are capable of making high quality movies without the industries backing.

            Occasionally, a talented amateur will strike gold and make a really good film on no budget (remember "Clerks?") But for every "talented bunch of individuals" that does that, there are literally thousands who completely SUCK. And not in a good way.

            If people off the street who wanted to make movies could do it well, everyone would just watch YouTube all the time and nobody would ever go to the movies. And yet, somehow, I plan to pay money to see "Star Trek Into Darkess" in a few weeks when I could have been w

      • by hedwards (940851)

        That's how unions work. If you don't have to be in the union to work a job then it greatly weakens the power that the union has to protect the members and advocate for better compensation and conditions.

        As for indie studios, unions negotiate with the studios and ultimately the union isn't just a one dimensional entity. Having more roles being available for members is something that they also have to worry about along side having the best working conditions and compensation.

      • by Rinikusu (28164) on Friday April 26, 2013 @10:26PM (#43564011)

        As an aspiring independent filmmaker, it's not really as bad as you make it out to be. There are very affordable indie-extremely-low-budget rates for us, and waivers and what not that can be had. Film permits, on the other hand...

  • Honestly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DiSKiLLeR (17651) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:15PM (#43562763) Homepage Journal

    Honestly? A deal with the movie studios (or any of the recording studios) is a deal with the devil.

    I applaud Cinedigm for giving an alternative a shot.

    • Re:Honestly? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nametaken (610866) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:30PM (#43562887)

      Well and, what exactly is wrong with this even if it's true?

      fretting that Cinedigm had unwittingly opened a Pandora's box in a bid to get attention for its low-budget release

      Isn't that precisely what you're supposed to do for your project? Get attention and as many eyes on the product as possible?

      Besides, we're talking about 7m of content here. It's not like they're relying on BitTorrent to sell and distribute a feature film. Though with external mechanisms, that's entirely possible. It's not like we don't have private trackers and such, and guys like Louis CK have demonstrated that a little good faith effort can make non-DRM'd content a financially viable product.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's an indie flick. The big studios want it to fail no matter what.

      • by iluvcapra (782887)

        "guys like Louis CK have demonstrated that a little good faith effort and a career developed on for-pay and ad-supported television can make non-DRM'd content a financially viable advertising platform for his subscriber-supported HBO show."

        FTFY.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by crutchy (1949900)

      Goliath (Hollywood) is simply worried that David (indie) may create a slingshot.

      • Goliath (Hollywood) is simply worried that David (indie) may create a slingshot.

        Actually it was a sling [wikipedia.org] with which David killed Goliath (well actually David knocked him out then cut Goliaths head with his own sword.) not a slingshot [wikipedia.org]. The sling is a weapon thats been around since the paleolithic era, the slingshot has been around since about the mid 1800's.

  • Cinedigm gets it! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:16PM (#43562773)

    It's not the technology, it's how you use it!

    • by jamstar7 (694492) on Friday April 26, 2013 @08:59PM (#43563481)
      It's like owning matches makes you an arsonist in the *AA's eyes. If you have bittorrent on your computer, you're a pirate, plain and simple.

      A 7 minute trailer distributed by bittorrent (After all, that's about all it will be equivilent to) gets the *AA up inside themselves? Good deal.
      • by Nidi62 (1525137)

        A 7 minute trailer distributed by bittorrent (After all, that's about all it will be equivilent to) gets the *AA up inside themselves? Good deal.

        Reminds me of when the Dawn of the Dead remake came out a few years ago. They had a deal where they showed the first 10 minutes of the film on USA to help promote the movie (and it worked, at least for me). To me, this is exactly the same thing, just distributed and shown through a different mechanism.

  • by detain (687995) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:19PM (#43562787) Homepage
    I probably won't like the movie but I respect them for trying to incorperate technologies that are uncommon in that industry.
  • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:21PM (#43562805)

    What we need is to stop the delegitimization of torrenting as a file transfer method. Equating torrents with piracy is ridiculous on it's face, it's nothing more than a means of transfering ANY data that's use legally all over the place. i haven't downloaded a linux distro the normal way in years, steam uses torrents, the list goes on.

    • steam uses torrents

      Where did you hear that?

    • A lot of commercial applications use torrents to run their automatic updates but it makes no difference because in the eyes of the studios the entire internet is synonymous with piracy. Coincidentally I was watching a satirical political show last night on ABC (Australia's answer to the BBC). They were taking the piss out of some US diplomat that said people shouldn't download a particular US TV show, the comic's answer was - "I'll make you a deal America, you stop making that shit and I will stop downloadi
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Seconded. I'm torrenting half a dozen files right now, mostly Linux distros, and my first book (only available at the pirate bay; I put it there myself).

    • by ArsonSmith (13997) on Friday April 26, 2013 @10:47PM (#43564145) Journal

      that's like equating tors silkroad with drug purchasing. there is literally tens of other things on there.

  • I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jfengel (409917) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:23PM (#43562819) Homepage Journal

    It's the first seven minutes. That is, it's an ad for the movie, not the movie.

    They could have just used YouTube, which would probably get them a lot more eyeballs, and has social-networky features to try to encourage others to watch it. You _want_ people to watch your ads, for free; you'd pay them if you could. I can't imagine why they'd use BitTorrent, aside from the fact that BitTorrent gets you a few headlines.

    This isn't any skin off Hollywood's nose. Well, maybe a little: by acknowledging that BitTorrent isn't universally evil, it cuts into their deranged "BitTorrent = piracy" campaign. But I can't see anything more to it than that.

    If they were using it to distribute the film, the studio might have some kind of point, though that point would be "How the heck can you distribute a movie on which you spent a minimum of $10 million just on the two lead actors (and probably more) via a medium you can't charge for?"

    • "How the heck can you distribute a movie on which you spent a minimum of $10 million just on the two lead actors (and probably more) via a medium you can't charge for?"

      Merchandising?

      • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chilvence (1210312) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:44PM (#43562973)

        Why does no one ever consider the possibility that perhaps $10 million for a lead actor is a slightly over the top wage for the challenge of 'looking pretty while pretending to be someone else in front of a video camera for a few months'?

        • Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

          by chilvence (1210312) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:47PM (#43562987)

          I mean seriously, it's no wonder no one has any shame about robbing hollywood, they've been robbing everyone else for decades :)

          It isn't really that hard to piece together the big picture is it?

        • Why does no one ever consider the possibility that perhaps $10 million for a lead actor is a slightly over the top wage for the challenge of 'looking pretty while pretending to be someone else in front of a video camera for a few months'?

          If I were a filmmaker I'd *insist* on using unknown actors. I'd want viewers to see Indiana Jones, not Harrison Ford. (Or whatever.)

          • Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Grieviant (1598761) * on Friday April 26, 2013 @08:43PM (#43563373)

            I think Harrison Ford would actually be in complete agreement with you. I recall an interview with him where he was recounting his early career and how he eventually became a big name actor. Basically, in a minor role as a bus boy, he had been pulled aside by a movie exec and told that he didn't have the 'star power' required to make it in Hollywood. The exec cited another popular actor of the era and said that he was easily recognizable as a star, even in a similar minor role. Ford replied something like "I thought the audience was supposed to be seeing a bus boy, not a movie star".

            I managed to find part of the interview here:
            http://www.biography.com/people/harrison-ford-9298701/videos [biography.com]
            Relevant bit starts 40 seconds in, but unfortunately it does not include Ford's rebuttal to the exec.

        • by hedwards (940851)

          Sigh, I take it you've never worked as an actor or studied film in any meaningful way.

          $10m is a lot of money, but with top rate talent that can easily translate into a much larger profit than going with a nobody, even after you pay the huge salary. What's more, it's not just 'looking pretty while pretending to be someone else in front of a video camera for a few months." There's often times a ton of work that goes into learning not just the lines, but how the character reacts to the situations that he or sh

          • by jedidiah (1196)

            > $10m is a lot of money, but with top rate talent that can easily translate into a much larger profit than going with a nobody

            You are paying $10M not for talent but for a big name that's expected to draw an audience regardless of the quality of the work or their performance.

            That can also translate into a big fat flop as you fixate on bean counting and forget about art and craftsmanship.

            • by hedwards (940851)

              It can translate into a big fat flop, but the likelihood is substantially less than if you're dealing with people that don't know how to work the talk show circuit and whose name isn't already known to the audience.

              Bottom line is that all things being equal a Johnny Depp film is substantially more likely to be a blockbuster than one by Joe Shmoe. And even if you're talking about somebody that's relatively untalented like Keanu is likely to fill far more theater seats than an unknown actor with substantially

        • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)

          by iluvcapra (782887) on Friday April 26, 2013 @08:50PM (#43563425)

          The economic reality is that motion pictures are a star-delivery system -- people pay to see faces and people they are familiar with, more than story and any other "quality" metric. A $10 million salary is justified if the movie will make $100 million, when the reality is that if it didn't have the star in the first place, it would have only barely made its cost back. Most of being an "star" actor isn't in the acting, it's the intentional ruining of your life in order to maintain a brand or image that audiences will seek out again and again.

          This is why lead actors don't generally get "$10 million," but in fact get $5 million or $10 million "against" some percentage of the producer's gross take of the box office. Their celebrity is the primary equity contribution they make to the film. Sad, and not a very nice thing to say about the intelligence of the median moviegoer, but it's the truth, particularly when the move is sold to foreign markets, where movies make the majority of their money nowadays.

          The alternative would be to pay the actors flat and let the producers keep the $100 million -- this is how it generally worked before the Free Agency revolution in Hollywood the 1950s, and the system was universally derided as exploitive and biased in favor of the studios over working artists.

        • Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Solandri (704621) on Friday April 26, 2013 @10:19PM (#43563971)

          perhaps $10 million for a lead actor is a slightly over the top wage

          Because it's not. Or at least it wasn't. Back in the days when distribution required printing thousands of copies, inking deals with thousands of theaters to show them, and contacting hundreds of local TV stations, magazines, and newspapers for advertising. Back then the barrier to entry was so high that only a few companies could make widely-distributed movies. Which meant only a few movies could become national (or worldwide) memes. Which meant only a few movies could rake in hundreds of millions of dollars. Which meant the actors who could consistently help you create a blockbuster movie commanded extraordinarily high salaries.

          The Internet completely pulls the rug out of that at the very lowest layer. Distribution is now essentially free, advertising nearly so especially if you can go viral. The obvious (well, obvious to me) outcome of all this is that whereas we used to have a few big studios, a few big movies, and a few big stars, now we're going to have lots of smaller studios, lots of smaller movies [wikipedia.org], and lots of small stars. Aggregate "filmmaking" revenue will go up, but it'll be distributed across a much larger population so average revenue per studio/movie/actor will go down. Yeah there will still be the blockbuster, but it's going to become increasingly rare (be sure to take into account inflation before you post any data claiming otherwise - the top grossing domestic film of all time in inflation-adjusted dollars [boxofficemojo.com] is still 1939's Gone with the Wind).

          The established studios are scared to death of this, so are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it and preserve their old, outdated business model. Just like happened with the VCR and movie rental stores. They fought those tooth and nail too, claiming they'd be the doom of the movie industry [slashdot.org]. Instead they turned into the lifeblood of the industry (tape/disc sales and rentals have long since surpassed movie theaters for revenue).

          • by brit74 (831798)

            The established studios are scared to death of this, so are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it and preserve their old, outdated business model. Just like happened with the VCR and movie rental stores. They fought those tooth and nail too, claiming they'd be the doom of the movie industry [slashdot.org]. Instead they turned into the lifeblood of the industry (tape/disc sales and rentals have long since surpassed movie theaters for revenue).

            I don't think movie studios fought movie rental stores or video

        • by Rinikusu (28164)

          While it may be hard to believe, that $10 million dollar actor brings in an additional $25-50 million at the box office because people think "OMG is in it, let's go see that movie!" even if it's a piece of shit. That's why the stars get paid what they do. Same with just about any other entertainment industry. Put Kanye or another the top producer's name on a track with another "hot artist" and it's almost like printing money.

      • You mean like this? [youtube.com]

    • by Threni (635302) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:30PM (#43562891)

      > I can't imagine why they'd use BitTorrent, aside from the fact that BitTorrent gets
      > you a few headlines.

      "Hmm...this one says `7 minutes`...and this one says `116 minutes`....where to click...."

    • I was just going to write something similar. At least with, say, Comcast's onDemand, you can watch the first 10 minutes, and then pay and continue the film, if you want. This is stupid.

      If they were using it to distribute the film, the studio might have some kind of point, though that point would be "How the heck can you distribute a movie on which you spent a minimum of $10 million just on the two lead actors (and probably more) via a medium you can't charge for?"

      Well, they could make it work like many private tracker sites, where if you're not a member, it won't work. Just pay at the site to get the torrent.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      These options are not exclusive.

    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      If they posted the 7 min clip on Youtube, the *AA would probably hit it with a DCMA takedown notice. They've done it before even on content they don't 'own'.
    • In a nutshell, they're just doing it for publicity, not because using torrents explicitly is going to garner them the most views. It's controversial; a movie studio embracing bittorrent in any quantity? This sort of thing sticks in minds a lot better than some tiny indie studio releasing a seven minute trailer on YouTube. Look at all the apparent good will it has garnered just in the slashdot comments? You think people would feel that way if it were just uploaded to YouTube?

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:24PM (#43562829)

    But its cute to try and blame it on one particular ... protocol? I'm not sure what 'deal with bittorrent' means. I mean, I get the 'first 7 minutes to bittorrent users' but who is that exactly? People that use software from bittorrent inc? Anyone with a bittorrent client? Who are they actually talking about? Well thought out statement you have there.

    Anyway, my point is that the big studios fear anything they don't completely control. They are afraid of people sharing things without them making a cut. They don't give damn about bittorrent, they care about sharing without them profiting.

    You just sound stupid when you propagate the stereotype, anyone with a clue knows they are just as afraid of you downloading something from HTTP as they are with bit torrent. Its not like they let you get buy with it via HTTP but not BitTorrent.

    From what I can tell from the actual article is that:

    The studios repeated their default statements anytime anyone shares anything online when they aren't getting a cut of the profits.
    Some indie movie is going to be put shared via bittorrent ... which isn't anything new, there are thousands of shitty indie movies on bittorrent already, thats like saying some indie movie is going to be uploaded to youtube. Contrary to what you may think: Indie does not imply that its worth watching.
    No one has heard of or cares about this indie movie either.

    Forget news for nerds, this isn't even news.

  • "'It's a deal with the devil,' one studio executive" [said]. I agree with that, but I would say the devil is the MPAA and the studio executives not Bittorrent.
  • Bittorrent is the right technology to deliver reams of data to multiple client. It's really good at that. I think it's about time that the media companies accept the reality. If they weren't such dinosaurs, they would have made the move along time ago. But they are dino's, so they will probably still resist to the end.
  • Check me is I'm wrong Scotty but isn't "indie" short for "independent"? Can't they do what ever the hell they think is in their best interest. And why is it when studios bleed Anamation and CGI shops dry and put them into bankruptcy - that is somehow good for the industry? Fatcat and Bigwigs trying to protect their turf if you ask me.
    • Re:Indie - pendent (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mill3d (1647417) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:48PM (#43563001)

      I second that. We CG people sure don't get to see the kind of money the major production houses flaunt and only have our jobs shipped out of country as ultimate reward. Many would be better off if it wasn't for overly-greedy middlemen ; we might actually see more cultural diversity as well. CG work is gruesome, constant focus work with short deadlines and low salaries for the amount of skill required. If Cinedigm opens an alternate route that turns out to be viable, new life can be breathed into the suffocating US film and animation industries and add some extra fluidity to the economy as a consequence.

      This should be an interesting fight.

      • Re:Indie - pendent (Score:5, Informative)

        by iluvcapra (782887) on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:09PM (#43563555)

        Champions of "indie" cinema take note: Cinedigm is simply a production/distribution division of Technicolor, (yes that Technicolor), a multi-billion dollar Hollywood production service company that operates as a vendor to all the Hollywood studios. Several of the producers have ongoing relationships with Technicolor and Focus Features, a division of NBCUniversal, which is handling distribution of the film in several foreign territories. Cinedigm is the US film and animation industries.

        This entire thing is just Technicolor putting up a tiny film, probably entirely produced with UK Lottery Fund money and North Carolina tax credits, as a stalking horse/advertising experiment. The film has no stars to speak of, it was probably going to die an unlamented death on pay-per-view before they upgraded their marketing campaign to full Viral mode.

        • by chihowa (366380)

          As gross as it is to "fall" for a big corp pretending to be indie, I think supporting this film is still a good idea. This is a big studio actually dipping its toes into bittorrent as a distribution method. If this little experiment goes well for them, they may voluntarily enter the 21st century. We could actually benefit from that.

          Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing them fail to adapt and die completely, so I'm still a little torn here...

  • by dex22 (239643) <plasticuserNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:41PM (#43562963) Homepage

    As an indie filmmaker, I understand the dilemma. Granted, I'm at the low end, and don't get to work with name actors, but the problems stay the same until you have to start worrying about territories and distribution - and this is a dispute about controlling distribution.

    If I invest, say, $20,000 of my own money in a project, I need to be reasonably confident about making at least some of that money back or I don't get to make another movie. I don't have a patron or rich lover to fund what I do, so... I have to not make consistent losses.

    Facing this reality, the main way I make money is through private showings in indie theaters, selling disks direct, and then when the economic potential of the production seems tapped out, sticking it somewhere accessible so at least it is seen by *people*.

    That doesn't really work. I don't know what else to do. I have a couple of really fun hard sci-fi ideas I'd love to develop, but the audience is hard to reach and still get paid enough to just cover my costs... Or I can participate in the conventional distribution system and be SURE of making no money.

    Unless there's some rich benefactor or wealthy single lady out there *grins* my really very specialist movies have no chance of being made or seen by a wide audience.

    Bittorrent breaks the distribution problem, but doesn't help the money problem.

    • by jfengel (409917)

      I'd like to think that Kickstarter would help solve the money problem. Technology has already helped solve the other side of the money problem: it's pretty remarkable that you can get a film made for $20k. (I'm an actor myself, and I realize what kinds of corners you're cutting to get a film made that cheaply. I know you'd love to hire real sound, light, and camera people, for example; they can make your film look so much better, but you've already blown past your $20k budget.)

      • I'd like to think that Kickstarter would help solve the money problem. Technology has already helped solve the other side of the money problem: it's pretty remarkable that you can get a film made for $20k.

        Technology has also solved the money problem re distribution of indie films.

        But that's why we're having this conversation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I completely agree here, this seems like a deal for kickstarter. Kickstarter will take care of several things right away, namely

        Getting the money to do the project (most important part)
        Knowing if there is an audience (simply not everybody wants everything, kickstarter will at least give you an idea if you production has an audience before you start)
        Advertisement (lots of people browse through kickstarter, its not the best advertisement, but its a start)

        Remember, with any project, creating the project is onl

    • by vanyel (28049) *

      Bittorrent breaks the distribution problem, but doesn't help the money problem.

      There are subscription trackers that can solve that problem as well. Many people use bittorrent because it's the easiest or only way to get content, not because they don't want to pay for it. There are those that don't of course, but they're not going to pay for it regardless, so they don't really count. Make it easy to get and easy to pay for and you'll get paid as much as, if not more than (no need to give others a cut), you

    • Bittorrent breaks the distribution problem, but doesn't help the money problem.

      Services like kickstarter fix the money problem. Forget trying to find one rich benefactor, look for a couple of thousand regular benefactors.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      As Cory Doctorow points out, nobody ever lost a dime from piracy but many artists have starved from obscurity. He credits his putting his books online for free as the reason he's a best seller.

      Put your films on bittorrent and let people know. Free sells.

      • by brit74 (831798)
        Cory Doctorow says a lot of stupid things. I especially like when he argued that "Nobody woke up one day and decided they'd like to have less rights with the digital content they buy" (in other words: copyright is dumb because it doesn't serve the customer's interest). Meanwhile, he believes that free piracy should be legal, he also believes that nobody should be allowed to sell his copyrighted material (beyond the first sale). Excuse me for pointing out the obvious contradiction, but (1) despite what he
    • by Rinikusu (28164)

      Let me know if your wealthy single lady has a wealthy ugly friend. I have a films to make, as well. :D

  • Delusional Nitwits (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FuzzNugget (2840687) on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:47PM (#43562983)
    In what other business could you act so profoundly antagonistic towards your own customers and expect your business to actually be around to see the next day?

    Fun object lesson: what happens when a violent animal is backed into a corner?
    • Banking. Medical insurance. Hollywood is small potatoes compared to finance.
    • In what other business could you act so profoundly antagonistic towards your own customers and expect your business to actually be around to see the next day?

      Basically any business which has a monopoly. In this case there are two related monopolies - copyright and distribution. The studios' monopoly on distribution is fading and that's why they are shitting bricks about this. Anything that even remotely speeds up their loss of control over distribution channels is an existential threat to these guys.

  • by sgt scrub (869860) <saintium@@@yahoo...com> on Friday April 26, 2013 @07:49PM (#43563005)

    I ditched warner bro's cable because they assumed all my UDP traffic was P2P. The went from shaping UDP to flat out blocking it. I wouldn't doubt they have hope other ISPs would follow. Anything legitimizing P2P would mean they couldn't block UDP based on assumption. Well. Considering how clue free their networking engineers seem to be, that might not be true.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Did they really block all your UDP traffic?!

      Somehow I find that very unlikely.
      UDP is used in a wide variety of common internet protocols, including DNS, so I highly doubt that they blocked all UDP traffic.
      If they did, you should complain to the FCC, and let the FCC give them a nasty fine and force them to change their practices, because that sounds very illegal.
      I am pretty sure ISP's are not allowed to block ports or protocols.

      HasHie @ TrYPNET.net

  • "Ha, ha."

    Or maybe "neener".

    Or, in the unlikely event that they actually want advice: "You picked the wrong war to fight."

  • by Legion303 (97901) on Friday April 26, 2013 @08:19PM (#43563239) Homepage

    "The fact of the matter is BitTorrent is in it for themselves, they're not in it for the health of the industry."

    The irony is so heavy it could shift Jupiter from its orbit.

    • by FauxReal (653820)
      No man, they're trying to bring high art to the masses. I hear they're living hand to mouth out in Hollywood.
  • The summary make BitTorrent equivalent to Pirate Bay. Sure the movie executives believes this but nothing can be farther than the truth. Of course, their logic sounds quite similar to the one used in the gun control debate.

    They believe that if they get rid of BitTorrent then it would make piracy less convenient. Little do they realize that the hard core infringers will just move on to the next tool to use.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:02PM (#43563507) Homepage

    > The fact of the matter is BitTorrent is in it for themselves, they're
    > not in it for the health of the industry.

    The fact of the matter is the studios are in it for themselves, they're not in it for the health of anyone but themselves. And that's fine, but why should the rest of us give a shit about their health? So Cinedigm's innovative move might cause movies to become less expensive and owning a studio less profitable. So what? That's competition.

    In fact, if the studios have some sort of agreement not to make any of their "properties" available via BitTorrent they should be sued for engaging in a restraint of trade.

  • by russotto (537200) on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:05PM (#43563525) Journal

    A movie studio making a deal with the Devil? So it's business as usual, right?

  • Many small time indie studios have launched entire movies exclusively through bittorrent.

    If Hollywood was going to fret about Indies embracing bittorrent they should of started a few years ago.

  • by viperidaenz (2515578) on Friday April 26, 2013 @10:51PM (#43564163)

    BitTorrent are not in the movie industry. It's not an "us and them" game.
    Cinedigm are embracing the internet and what it is evolving in to. Hollywood film studios are clinging to their outdated business models and throwing their toys out the cot when not everyone plays by their rules.

  • by bl968 (190792) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @01:12AM (#43564779) Journal

    I think Bittorrent should file a RICO civil suit for conspiracy and copyright abuse against the RIAA and the MPAA and their associated companies for conspiracy in attempting to de-legitimize an essentially legal service by prohibiting member companies from making legitimate use of the service. The flack Cinedigm is getting is the first layer of proof needed that they colluded to do so. The discovery process alone should quite be fun to watch.

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...