I can’t help but be aware of a disturbing harmonic buzz in my head when I read two stories on the same day that point to a particular digital age dichotomy. Remember Sarah Jones? You might have helped her story go viral. Sarah was a camera assistant, who was killed when she was struck by a train during filming of the Gregg Allman biopic Midnight Rider. I read today that the producers of that now-cancelled project have surrendered themselves to Georgia State authorities to face charges of involuntary manslaughter stemming from the February 20 disaster. But also today, I read that the app Popcorn Time, which makes movie piracy easy for everyone with its Netflix-like interface, is being “improved” for the Android platform. The hypocrisy underlying the concurrence of these stories is typical of our times. The same technology that enables people to know about Sarah, to share her story, even to join the campaign pledging better on-set safety, also allows some of the very same individuals to flick a thumb and start pirating motion pictures that are made by tens of thousands of people just like Sarah.
Here’s a clue: if you enjoy motion pictures and actually care at all about the well being of the individuals who do the heavy lifting to make those films happen, don’t pirate. It’s a no-brainer. In an effort to justify this behavior, you can quibble all you like about where you think (because you actually don’t know) the money goes; but in general, the money (a.k.a. the project investment) pays for worker wages, union support, insurances, location fees, and, yes, safety procedures and personnel. Unfortunately, accidents and negligence still happens; and it is always the responsibility of managers and fellow crew members to keep checks on our ingrained culture that wants to get the shot at almost any cost. Surely, firsthand accounts of the Midnight Rider production sound like the kind of amateurish crap that goes on all the time and thankfully only rarely results in serious injury or death. So, while I’d certainly stop short of saying piracy kills filmmakers, I will not hesitate to say that, in general, economic stability is better for maintaining worker safety in every industry. And we have yet to fully see the effects of piracy on this industry.
We have a bad habit of talking about piracy with regard to finished and popular filmed entertainment. Partly, this is because it suits piracy’s supporters to say things like “XYZ tentpole made a gazillion dollars, so piracy does no harm and probably even helps.” But for every Avengers and Game of Thrones out there, there are hundreds or thousands of small and medium budget pictures being made, many of which are the films most treasured by serious fans.
Digital-age utopians love to extoll the virtues of independent, guerrilla filmmaking; and when they do, it’s a little like listening to middle-class white kids gripe about the struggle of some oppressed minority. It’s both true and utter bullshit at the same time, especially if the self-appointed proponent of indie filmmaking is also pro-piracy. The reality is none of these people has a clue about the very specific set of skills Sarah Jones had developed and was developing in her role as an AC. Those skills don’t come cheap, and neither should they. But among the indisputable ill effects of piracy is that it exerts economic pressure on the industry as a whole, and it will always be the small to midsize, indie producers who will present the earliest symptoms of the diseases caused by this pressure. These symptoms may include lower standard wages for skilled workers and/or shortcuts around various production practices that affect general working conditions, including safety.
Yes, Sarah’s untimely and entirely avoidable death should be a wake-up call to production teams everywhere to remind themselves that no film is worth unreasonable risks to a crew member’s safety. But as this tragic story also draws attention to the many otherwise invisible hands behind the scenes, perhaps consumers ought to consider their responsibility to support a sustainable industry rather than casually line the pockets of poachers who do absolutely nothing.
David,
You have two options here:
* Find a way to actually stop/significantly reduce filesharing.
* Find a way to fund film development without the need to attack filesharing.
Why not just chop a few hands off and stick a video on YouTube?
If you want to see who exactly you are stealing from when you pirate a film, just sit through the several minutes of credit crawl at the end of a film… These folk are for the most part blue collar workers. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it…
So…uh…are you saying it’s OK to pirate Transformers, but one should pay to see small, arty movies? Because I can totally get behind this idea if there’s even the remotest hope whatsoever that it will help cause movies like Transformers not to get made and good movies stand a better chance because they’ll be more profitable…
Obviously, I’m not saying that, and not making Transformers doesn’t mean other films get made. It’s always more complicated than that, but if no viewers wanted Transformers, then nobody would make it.
David…you know I really love this blog and what you’re trying to do…even tho we seem to sometimes disagree. That being said, the complexity – or at least part of it – comes from the fact that much art these days (music, film, etc) gets made for the sole purpose of selling it, not enlightening people, not for the intrinsic beauty of it, not for teaching people life lessons about the world they live in or to uncover deeper layers of their humanity.
Just for a reference point, if you look at almost any “Top 100” list of great movies, what you will find is a list heavily slanted toward movies from the 60’s and 70’s. Some classic movies from much earlier, and a few from the 80’s/90’s, etc…but not that many. This might tell us a couple of things…the first is that when fewer people were making the decision about what to produce (as studios were run back then), a better product stood a chance. And the converse would be true as well…when there are more people involved in the decision (as is true today – marketing departments, packaging, product placement…all kinds of people have input now), the product usually becomes much safer, much more diluted, and more generic.
Another thing that may possibly be inferred from this is that audiences back then were conditioned to appreciate (and thus support) a better quality product…the reverse may be true now – audiences are being conditioned to support movies like Transformers because they are being fed a steady diet of it and if you do not live in an arty section of a major city, your choices of what you can see at your local mall cineplex are very limited and you won’t be exposed to better product.
Is this by design? Because it’s actually harder to make better movies and TV, and the glut of channels out there that demand an ever steadier diet of product make a less discerning audience a positive rather than a negative…because the real game is merely to keep the idiots glued to the screen long enough to get them to watch the commercials. In other words, let’s just give the crowd a bunch of special effects, loud music, and some chase scenes…and they won’t be able to tell the difference…and if they don’t shut it off, the puppet masters win. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but I can’t help but notice where we are…
So for me, I choose to support art…and I also support almost anything that tweaks the corporate mentality of companies that don’t know the difference between art and garbage as they sit on their pretentious butts and whine about how the unwashed hordes are “stealing” something precious. And while I’m cognizant of the fact that piracy may cost innocent people some jobs, I’m also aware that those jobs create products that, much like the Military/Industrial War Machine, are ultimately detrimental to our health.
I don’t think that quality is a factor here. It doesn’t matter whether the film is the latest blockbuster, or some art house film. If it comes to attention it will get ripped off. There is no distinction in that respect.
Overviper, thanks for your compliments and for your thoughts. Although you tempt me to launch into my own treatise on the subject that the mid-60s through the 70s was Hollywood’s true, and sadly brief, golden age, I’ll resist. Not only would that require a comment that is either unforgivably long or woefully short, but John Warr makes the right point in this thread. If we agree that what piracy fundamentally does is exploit labor without labor’s permission, then a policy or stance against it ought to be agnostic; it should not matter what we feel about the works themselves. In fact, if we’re opposed to the exploitation of labor, then it doesn’t technically matter what industry we’re talking about. Swap Assistant Camera Ops for Factory Line Workers, and I’d feel the same way, if there were a black market exploiting their products and threatening their livelihoods. In the post, I was pointing out that the small guys will get hurt first because they always do, and the choice is binary — pirate or don’t pirate. Pirating selectively is a false moral choice, and it would not have the effect of only killing off the movies one doesn’t like.
All that said, I agree with many of your observations, but again, my own spin on the evolution of the industry over the last half century would take quite some time. What I will point out is that American cinema at least has never not been about making money. Hollywood — and I don’t like using the term so generically — has produced masterworks at various times; and era by era, project by project, great films have been produced either in collaboration with or in spite of “the suits.” The reasons why the major studios only make hundred-million dollar spectacles (that I also find soulless) is a response to several market realities, and I was simply pointing out that not making Transformers XXIII will not automatically free up resources to make 50 great little films. Would that it were so. In fact, there was an article a couple of years ago about certain studio execs who don’t even want to see the films they have to green light. Suffice to say the studios themselves produce very few feature films relative to the number of projects produced by independents. Their entire business structures have been redesigned in response to market changes over the last couple of decades.
The vicious cycle to which you refer is nothing new. Feed people a steady diet of junk food, and they will reject hand-crafted meals made with fresh ingredients. But with regard to the premise that people will develop tastes for certain creative works based to the diet they are fed, I am admittedly torn because the argument depends on so many cultural factors. I’m sure you’re familiar with the H.L. Mencken quote, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” Somewhere between that justifiable cynicism and the Quixotic desire in the artist to produce something creatively risky, we get the diversity of masterpieces, financial successes, flops, sleepers, and cult classics we call cinema. So far, nobody has been particularly good at predicting which of these will manifest from the first words in a screenplay. And, yes, usually the more decision-makers involved, the more a project is likely to suck (to use a technical term). I thought “Her” was a fantastic film about man & machine in our times while “Transcendence” was awful. So since “Transcendence” flopped financially, does this mean that putting the same marketing energy behind “Her” would have made it a huge, popular hit that would have put the right number of butts in seats on opening weekend? Very hard to say given the shifting demographics of audiences who even go to theaters anymore.
Only a couple of points to try to make…
1. I think it would be an easier sell to try to get people not to pirate small, arty movies as opposed to studio mega-event movies because there is already little sympathy for the studios, which are perceived as mindless corporate whores already. There are already people making this appeal and I think it’s a good approach.
2. If you talk to people who used to be development executives, they will tell you that indeed, they could tell you what a movie was going to be like from the script. Today, the process by which movies get made have let the development people be replaced by the marketing and packaging people. So what that has lead to is an unrealistic reliance upon the director’s “vision”. If you’ve ever seen a McG movie, you know how well this works…some people are very good salesmen but can’t deliver a movie with an intact story. The odds against another Lawrence of Arabia ever getting made are long indeed. But of course, the people in charge have to be able to tell the difference.
3. The dichotomy here is that the studios might very well be in a position to re-educate an audience for better movies by simply providing more of them and marketing them as aggressively…but like I say…good, artistic product is harder to make than crap. It demands more effort. It demands more vision. It demands more artistic sensibility, and if you keep hiring people whose artistic vision starts and ends with Star Wars they are not equipped for the job.
Last week, someone tried to get me to go see the new Planet of the Apes movie – here in brief is that exchange…My friend: Come on, I hear it’s great. Me: Monkeys with machine guns? Really? My friend: Everyone says it’s a great movie. Me: It’s not a movie…it’s a cartoon. My friend: Bugs Bunny is a cartoon. Me: I’ll go see 2 hours of Bugs Bunny, the writing is better…
So can you get me to care if people rip off that movie? No, not really…
I think there is something about going to a theater to see a movie on a large screen with other people in the audience that has appeal on a few levels…like a concert, there is a sense of shared immediate experience, and the fact that the movies are a “destination” date leads me to believe that they might be around for awhile.
All the arty films are on torrent sites. All the small indie label acts are on torrents, all the small jazz label artists are on torrents. All the small independent films are on torrents. In the eyes of someone torrenting their entertainment it doesn’t matter whether its a major studio, mega-stars album or that of some worthy. Thieves pick the pockets of both the rich and the poor.
Why should taste be a factor on whether or not something is stolen?
If you think it looks like a mindless movie, great… don’t see it! Don’t steal it either…
The fact that there exists mindless drivel is precisely because there is a market for it… this is less a reflection of the film company but of the audience. Like it or not but the ‘average’ American is a moron… if you would like better movies, start with the public school system..
I can’t disagree with either of you guys, but I also think there’s a case to be made for guilt. Not for everyone, but for maybe enough people to want to step up and pay for content made by people like them rather than some corporation. Piracy will never go away, but encouraging good behavior might just lessen it. As for the demand by the public for stupid movies, we always had mindless entertainment, always will…but we also had more of a choice.
Just like most music is made for 14 year old girls, so movies are made for teenage boys, while the biggest demographic in the US is baby boomers, who have plenty of disposable income, but not much to spend it on…because the entertainment corporations are run by people who think that they can sell me a movie that has monkeys with machine guns in it…
I think if they do somehow manage to curtail filesharing (this is super hypothetical), people won’t just randomly start paying tons of money they don’t really have on content, but spend more of their time with free content (Wikipedia, etc.).
I don’t even necessarily think it’s about money. I very rarely go the movies and neither does the wife. It’s not because of price, a movie ticket is pretty cheap. I actually have like five movie ticket vouchers given to me as gifts over the last few years that I have yet to use. So watching movie in a theater costs me nothing in theory.
It’s just that things like reading Wikipedia, reading and posting comments 🙂 on blogs, going on long walks. All that stuff interests me a lot more then like watching a movie or TV.
Likewise, I’m sure some of the cord cutters are supplementing with filesharing. Others might just be *gasp* not watching TV anymore.
And the idea that people might not want their product anymore fucking scares Hollywood more then any filesharing.
Totally agree with that…I live in LA, and this year Time Warner paid a ton of money to the Dodgers for the broadcast rights to the games. Then they turned around and tried to charge everyone extra for the games…guess what? People aren’t watching the Dodgers…
The question is not solely whether piracy of corporate properties is morally wrong. It’s also whether it is as morally wrong as pirating the work of an indie creator. I’d suggest that some people are having to go through intellectual contortions not to accept that it categorically isn’t. (In the same way as shoplifting from Walmart is not the same level of moral severity as shoplifting from the mom and pop store on the corner).
As you’ve recently pointed out David, corporations are a “tool”. I’d call them a “legal conceit”, but either way, we seem to agree that they’re an abstraction.
Stealing from an abstraction is not the same thing as stealing from a person. They’re simply not on the same moral level. So yes, there is a significant moral difference between pirating corporate owned properties and individually owned properties.
If you choose to sell your IP to a corporation fine, but your opinion on it is then no more relevant or significant than mine. You chose not to own it any more. You don’t get to make that choice and also claim a special say as its creator. Any more than the farmer gets a say on who drinks his milk once he’s sold it on.
All that said, it is still a more moral decision to pay for the Hollywood movie you want to see than it is to pirate it. (Note that I’m way less hostile to Hollywood then I am to the record labels because I don’t consider them malign in the same way). The only hypothetical exception to that is if you have concrete evidence that the corporation in question is using child labour, is a serial polluter or other seriously unethical business practice. In that case, the moral decision is to not have anything to do with the movie. But you can make a good case that pirating it is actually less harmful then giving an actively malevolent company your money. As I said, that’s hypothetical though. I don’t know of any film company to which it applies, but I haven’t researched it really.
@Overviper
Yeah, as David has pointed out, it’s not as simple as “If Transformers doesn’t get made more indie films will be”.
There’s an element of truth in it. The idea that people have a limited “entertainment budget” to spend is intuitive. If that’s the case, then it logically follows that Transformers may take money that could be spent seeing something different.
Quite honestly though, piracy is the least effective way of sticking it to the big guys ever. Any financial loss doesn’t affect them as much overall because their profit margins are so much higher. And there’s some tentative evidence that, if anything, piracy actually consolidates their cultural dominance rather then challenging it.
If you want to help indie and DIY creators (whether that’s films, music or books), you do it like this. First and foremost, you buy their work. If it’s on “pay what you want”, you do so for a price you believe is fair, because you know that the money is far more likely to go back into their pocket. If you see something you really like, tell people about and encourage them to check it out for themselves. That’s both the moral and the most effective way to go about it.
If you want to go in a bit more hostile against big media, do so like this. Don’t pirate. All thinks being equal, never choose to get a corporate product when something equally good is available. And deliberately promote indie/DIY works as an superior choice to mass produced corporate art. Don’t pirate. Mock, insult, degenerate it’s artistic value in comparison.
I’ll be honest. I don’t really accept that there’s any reason to conflate the subjects of piracy, popular entertainment v art, and a desire to stick it to the big guys. These are all separate issues and should remain separate. As I said in an older and widely read post, if my own kids told me they were pirating because a) Hollywood movies are crap and/or b) because they want to stick it to the Man, we’d have a serious talk because those are very adolescent ideas.
On piracy, I believe the fundamental reason not to do it is that it severely hampers the capacity for a legitimate market to evolve and grow. The numbskulls who say “adapt” ignore the fact that NO industry can adapt to free-wheeling theft. It simply cannot be done. On a more granular level, and the point of this post, piracy threatens the livelihoods of the other Sarah Joneses out there, and it really shouldn’t matter if they’re working on films you like or films you don’t like. Which brings us to…
Popular entertainment v. Art. One thing to know about the film business anyway is that sometimes those big-ticket movies you don’t want to see wind up supporting people who go off and make indie films you do want to see. But that aside, this is an old argument that has no end because one man’s art will always be another’s pop slush and vice versa. I could write pages on why I consider a lot of contemporary big pictures to be so awful and what I think would make them better (and some of this would echo Overviper’s views). But that would just be my opinion; and even if I were somehow proven right, it would not dramatically alter the economics that shape the industry we have and, therefore, would not dramatically change the decision-making process involved with raising and spending huge dollars. I would welcome a catalytic event that blows up some of the wheels that have been turning for the last 30 years, but there will always be and always has been popular stuff that I or you or someone else thinks is garbage. And I don’t frankly think it matters who produces the works. Small indies produce crappy films and big studios are involved in some interesting ones.
Piracy is no way to stick it to the proverbial Man or certainly to get the Man to produce different works. For one thing, if Fast and Furious 6 is as popular on torrent sites as it is in theaters, all that does is tell the development and marketing departments that the film is a hit. Beyond that, though, with feature films, the big studios are largely in the business of finance, distribution and support services like stages and wardrobe departments. Nearly all of the features out there are produced by independent production companies, including the big blockbusters we’re hating on in this thread. There’s a reason you see 3-5 company logos before a film starts; it’s all joint ventures and limited partnership deals. And again, each of those logos represents a few hundred middle-class workers with jobs who don’t decide which projects their companies are going to produce. So, the idea that one can target The Man through piracy or convince oneself that “stealing from a corporation is okay because it’s a corporation,” doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, Sam, I said a corporation is a thing and cannot, therefore, practice a religion or perform any number of other tasks that a living person can do. But to suggest, therefore, that stealing from a corporation is not stealing from people is clearly false. You know full well that if Macy’s experienced unfettered shoplifting, it’s employees would soon be unemployed, and that would in turn have a detrimental impact on the coffee and sandwich shops surrounding Herald Square. How could we describe the shoplifting as anything other than stealing from people?
Back in the 1980s everyone had pirate copies of dBase, Wordperfect, VisiCalc, and whatever the supposed #1 DTP was. Hardly any of them needed those packages, mostly they couldn’t use them anyway, and simply stuff for a few quid would have sufficed to keep a record of their LPs, write letters to their mum, work out their petrol consumption, and run of a leaflet for the village fete. But they all had the big four. By the 90s it was Word, Access, Excel. Choice, variety, and innovation is no more.
“Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don’t pay for the software. Someday they will, though, and as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.” –Bill Gates
Sam,
Just to let you know I agree with this. I’m for anything that will make it harder for mass media to operate as a business, and boycotting is MUCH more effective then piracy. Indeed. But convincing people to boycott the music and film industry is nearly impossible.
In absence of filesharing, some people will become detatched from Hollywood’s propaganda machine. But to some extent, without competition from “free”, content providers WILL actually make more money (as they claim they will!) and become more powerful. Which they will use to peddle more and more compelling sheeple-creating product.
I think maybe the winds are starting to change and mass media is being slowly replaced by social media, which is harder to control. But the world still has an unhealthy addiction to Hollywood’s centrally curated culture that won’t go away if filesharing went away.
I’m gonna make this argument…
When you go see a movie, you are buying a pig in a poke. You’ve seen the trailer, but what you’ve really seen is a sales pitch. If you see an ad on TV for a Buick, you get to go for a test drive before you buy it. Not so with a movie…you buy a ticket, you take your chances.
The fact is that big corporations spend tons of money on making those trailers…and tons more splashing those trailers everywhere they can. I have friends who work for trailer companies, so this is not conjecture. A small company cannot compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis in terms of that advertising, which encourages the audience to spend their money on the product that is advertised more often and more slickly…
So if the product doesn’t match the sales pitch, are they stealing from us?
As a stockholder in some entertainment corporations, I want a return on my investment, but as an artist who has his own projects to flog, I decry the unfairness of this situation.
Piracy may not be the answer, but it’s certainly some kind of wake-up call. The problem with cracking down on it is that all the cures that have been backed by the giant media corporations are a cure worse than the disease. And now we’re starting to see even more consolidation of those companies…and the bigger they get, the more power they will have to enact favorable legislation…I object to that on a moral basis, but what I object to even more is the fact that they will control more and more of the information stream that flows to our brains. I don’t have an answer…I wish I did…
“So if the product doesn’t match the sales pitch, are they stealing from us?”
Um, no. No more than if a live perfmance doesn’t meet to your expectations.
If you don’t like a movie, so what? (And the whole “I pay for what I like” argument falls apart unless if you download something and don’t like it you immediately erase it. It’s pure rationaliziation.
No, not really…with a concert, chances are you’ve heard the band, bought some tracks, heard them on YouTube, etc…all of which goes to show that free distribution is good for sales…or maybe just that there’s a link you can establish. A movie…you’ve only seen the trailer…which is a very expensive ad…which was my point.
And yet even if you’ve heard everything by a band, there’s still a chance their live performance on that night will suck.
If you didn’t like the movie, so what? They didn’t guarantee you would like it. C’est la vie.