Steal This Movie Anyone?

[Tommy]

Anybody see the flick "Steal This Movie II" yet? It is new.

http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/

I have some very strong opinions on this flick. The movie and organization behind the flick is very pro p2p and believe that all information should be freely available. This includes music and movies. However, their arguments crumble and they (at least to me) come off as being hypocrites.

They state that music and movies will still be made even if distributed freely. Those who want to produce will find a way. They also state that it will just be a different economic model but are extremely vague as to what it is, to the point that they really say nothing.

The part that kills the whole thing is the end credits. They ask for a 5 dollar donation from all those that download and watch the flick. Hmmmm, sounds like the old economic model in action. They want people to pay for the video. I'm sorry, did I say pay? I meant donate. Of course, if you pay (err...donate) 15 dollars or more, you will also get a "mystery package." Sounds like an economic incentive to me.

That alone proves that what they produced is bullshit.

They also stated that most musicians produce because they want people to hear their music, money is not as important. Someone needs to re-take psych 101.

Most bittorent sites are littered with advertising on them. Isn't that just shifting who gets the economic benefit from what is being distributed?

Don't get me wrong, I am no stranger to bittorent and the likes. However, this flick is just an hour-long snow-job.

Tommy

[QwazyWabbit]

The whole premis of "free" internet sites is eyeballs, same as on TV. Only instead of Nielsen ratings they can directly count every click.

Producers make money off the advertisers with product to sell. Product (movies, books, music) selling product (coffee mugs, more music, more movies).

See Space Balls, the Movie.... "it's the merchandizing!"

[Snake]

They state that music and movies will still be made even if distributed freely. Those who want to produce will find a way. They also state that it will just be a different economic model but are extremely vague as to what it is, to the point that they really say nothing.

So, if, say, software were produced for free, and distributed for free, no software would be made anymore? I mean, paying for designers, testers, quality assurance, legal advice, pay-role people, cafeterias, pension, health-care plans, how would a few well willing programmers make up for those costs if they program just because they get a kick out of it? Yeah, free software will *never* happen!

The part that kills the whole thing is the end credits. They ask for a 5 dollar donation from all those that download and watch the flick. Hmmmm, sounds like the old economic model in action. They want people to pay for the video. I'm sorry, did I say pay? I meant donate. Of course, if you pay (err...donate) 15 dollars or more, you will also get a "mystery package." Sounds like an economic incentive to me.

An incentive to improve their chances that a few people will actually give some money. You know as well as I do that it's not easy to make people give money for something without getting something back, unless it touches their conscience.. I fail to see how that makes them hypocrits. As I understand you you're not even *required* to pay the 5 bucks, so what if they try to make some people give some more?

That alone proves that what they produced is bullshit.

I don't understand that. How can you tell from the way they hope to get some money for their efforts that the movie is bullshit? To me it's a bit like one free software model. Make something that many people want to use, have the most often used features free, and make second version that you have to pay for, that includes a few features that only a few people would need, especially people who make money with your software. If you make money off some software, surely you can contribute something back to the guy that made it? Or in this situation, if you *really* enjoyed the movie, and you have a good job, and $15 wouldn't hurt your wallet one little bit, why not hope that those people would go for an incentive?

Most bittorent sites are littered with advertising on them. Isn't that just shifting who gets the economic benefit from what is being distributed?

Now you're comparing a current condition to a possibly changed position in the future. Movie websites don't include external advertising now because money comes in from tickets and dvd sales. With more free movies you'd expect to see more advertising on the movie websites themselves. Perhaps more sponsoring *in* the movies. P2P and torrents are still limited to a small percentage of movie viewers, most ppl don't understand jack schitt about how to use them

The 'different way of producing movies when they are free' is based on the intention of the people making a movie. Is it A) because they want to get rich quickly, or B) because their passion is making movies? If B), they only need to find a way to recover costs they made in enjoying their passion. The more succesful these kinds of movies are in actually getting some dollars back to the makers, the more they will dare to invest in their hobby.

Does it make sense in a business way? of course not. It would just enable some people to do what they like to do, and receive *some* money for it. I'm pretty sure nobody would get rich that way, but perhaps it would make some a living for a while.

/me burps.

[QwazyWabbit]

I think Tommy is talking about the basic contradiction between "free" entertainment or sofware and the idea of taking donations or advertizing money as part of the deal. To say "steal this" and feel free to donate is not free. But then again free software doesn't mean zero cost.

Free in this case means somebody else is paying the cost of production. Whether it's sponsors or donors there is little difference since the artist and producers are getting someone to pay for it.

In the old days they passed the hat around the audience after the minstrel show. It was a subsistence living. Kings and princes supported artists like Da Vinci and Michaelangelo and it was called patronage. No artist gave it away for "free" without someone supporting him whether it was food and shelter or coin. Now the minstrels travel around doing "rock concerts" and CD promos. The scale and costs are higher and its just about impossible to do it on a large scale without a money man. It's still just a minstrel show.

Programmers who produce free software are doing it on a subsistence basis if it's shareware or donorware or else they are doing as a hobby or sideline where they are supporting themselves with a day job and someone is paying them to do something else or write something else. Either way the true cost of the software development is hidden or carried off to someone elses books. A very small number are doing it because they have made their millions on something else and are doing it for the fun of it and the true cost again is removed.

Book writers starved while writing their great novels and publishers raked it in when their starving artists hit the big time. Very few make a decent living at it.

Is it hypocrisy to say steal this but we accept donations? Are they hipocrits if they have managed to convince their patrons that it's good business to offer something to be "stolen" with permission? Is it stolen when it's given away by the owners?

QW

[Snake]

Programmers who produce free software are doing it on a subsistence basis if it's shareware or donorware or else they are doing as a hobby or sideline where they are supporting themselves with a day job and someone is paying them to do something else or write something else. Either way the true cost of the software development is hidden or carried off to someone elses books. A very small number are doing it because they have made their millions on something else and are doing it for the fun of it and the true cost again is removed.

For some that's true, others ask for donations to recovers costs like webhosting, test machines, etc etc. Not necessarily to get rich, just not to get too much more poor

Is it hypocrisy to say steal this but we accept donations? Are they hipocrits if they have managed to convince their patrons that it's good business to offer something to be "stolen" with permission? Is it stolen when it's given away by the owners?

I suppose there's something to be said for that, if you take the word 'free' literally in its truest form. To me at least it's not hypocrisy to say "you don't have to pay for this, but I'd a appreciate a small handout to help recover some costs, if you can afford it and want to", and still call it free.

It may not be "pure free" in the sincerest way if you see some adverts while getting your stuff without paying for it directly, but again, at least for me, that's close enough to "pure totally utterly free" to not blow a gasket The use of the word 'stealing' is probably more of a gimmick than a promise that it won't cost you a single penny, even if you *want* to give a penny.

[QwazyWabbit]

True enough. And we all know Tommy likes blowing gaskets.

[Snake]

True enough. And we all know Tommy likes blowing

Damn right! Love the input from others to this thread too ;p

[Tommy]

Nice edit to that quote

I had relatives visiting here all week so my time was quite limited. They left last night though and I fully intend to respond to both this and the Hollywood thread ASAP.

So eat it bitches.

Tommy