The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
BitTorrent, A Boon To Independent Filmmakers
torrentfreak.com — Talented independent filmmakers are benefiting immensely from having their movies distributed for free on BitTorrent. Films that might never have been heard of before are now being watched by millions of people.
sunurb01- 746 diggs
- digg it
- Zamboni33, on 12/15/2007, -4/+27It seems that this article sums up exactly what Oink did for independent musicians who just wanted to be heard... Movie companies need to look at both sides of the argument when they ramble about movie profits being down.
- fkr3, on 12/15/2007, -12/+7If Oink wanted to be a distribution platform for indie music perhaps they should have focused more on being a distribution platform for indie music instead of piracy.
On top of that a handful of "success cases" does not balance out the hundreds of thousands or millions of files being illegally downloaded "this second".
And finally on top of that, BitTorrent is a distribution mechanism. Illegal downloaders and whores like TorrentFreak do BitTorrent and P2P a disservice that is killing it with their constant rhetoric about piracy and how everything should be free.- l33tspam, on 12/15/2007, -6/+9Oh quit your whining.
- Ratteler, on 12/16/2007, -2/+3Once again fkr3 spreads the hardcore party line that "We The People" are the pirates and NOT the lying thieving media companies stealing our public domain through bribery of our corrupt elected officials, manipulation through abuse (and most likely bribery) of our court system, invasion of our privacy without due process, and blatant acts of terror.
Congratulations, Fkr3. When the revolution comes, I want your ***** head on pike right next to other traitors to the people of this nation like Cary Sherman, and Dan Glickman.
- krnldmp, on 12/15/2007, -4/+8They wont do that. Sticking with the "thieves stole our proft!" angle keeps from having to admit that their product actually just sucks too much to buy.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5But no film is too crappy to pirate, right? "Hollywood turns out horrible entertainment! I must have all of it!"
- Makaveli604, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2For free? I'll take everything.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5But no film is too crappy to pirate, right? "Hollywood turns out horrible entertainment! I must have all of it!"
- fkr3, on 12/15/2007, -12/+7If Oink wanted to be a distribution platform for indie music perhaps they should have focused more on being a distribution platform for indie music instead of piracy.
- SiNN4R, on 12/15/2007, -3/+18I've seen far far more movies than I otherwise would thanks to the internet. I frequently download bizarre obscure movies from independent film makers that I otherwise wouldn't even know exist.
- stonebear, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Me too. In fact, the bulk of my video downloads are content which has been slighted by the mass distribution network for one reason or another (ie. films like Duma and Joyeux Noel). No sale is lost on me, as I would not otherwise have become aware of its existence. Yet, sales are generated when I purchase the DVDs for others as gifts, and they are purchases I feel good about.
- RobotBuddha, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2Pretty much the same here, except that I always buy a copy for myself if and when the movie actually hits dvd. The problem is that as films become cheaper to produce, the quality is going up by a fairly large margin. Independent movies are finally getting to the point where they can have a better script than most of the traditional hollywood movies, but not have that balanced out by horrible video quality. This has seriously increased my interest in them, but the distribution just isn't there.
There's a film festival out here once a year, and that's great. But otherwise it's a flip of the coin as to which of three movies is going to wind up in rotation in our little art house theater. For every one we get, we lose out on a huge number of other high quality movies. I have the money, and I'd much rather pay to see it in a theater or just purchase and download a movie from a single place rather than keep a list of movies and periodically check torrent sites to see if anyone's managed to grab it yet. But it's just not feasible at the moment to do anything but download them from torrent sites for 90% of these kinds of movies. And that's from a town where I even have a chance of seeing them. For someone not living in a larger city, I imagine it has to be closer to 100%.
- RobotBuddha, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2Pretty much the same here, except that I always buy a copy for myself if and when the movie actually hits dvd. The problem is that as films become cheaper to produce, the quality is going up by a fairly large margin. Independent movies are finally getting to the point where they can have a better script than most of the traditional hollywood movies, but not have that balanced out by horrible video quality. This has seriously increased my interest in them, but the distribution just isn't there.
- stonebear, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Me too. In fact, the bulk of my video downloads are content which has been slighted by the mass distribution network for one reason or another (ie. films like Duma and Joyeux Noel). No sale is lost on me, as I would not otherwise have become aware of its existence. Yet, sales are generated when I purchase the DVDs for others as gifts, and they are purchases I feel good about.
- Craga89, on 12/15/2007, -14/+24***** THE RIAA!
- houndeyex, on 12/15/2007, -2/+21And the MPAA.
- Skanadian, on 12/15/2007, -2/+10You're doing it wrong.
- danarama, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1no they're just doing it.
- chrisjs169, on 12/15/2007, -1/+8While we're at it...the IFPI and BPI.
- prophetpimp, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1dont forget those international ***** at CRIA and BRIEN.
- Alix7, on 12/15/2007, -5/+33***** THE MPAA!
- naz37, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I hate the MPAA as much as the next digger, but lets not be childish about it.
- Error601, on 12/15/2007, -13/+12Because having your movie watched pays for cameras, sets, and crew?
- br0wnstar, on 12/15/2007, -5/+11You're an idiot. Exposure is far more valuable to someone than complete obscurity. For directors and also for the cast and crew.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Explain how that works. It's better to be famous with no one actually buying your work than it is to be unknown but getting paid?
- br0wnstar, on 12/15/2007, -4/+4They're getting paid for their time regardless. Except now, with fame, they're more likely to be noted for other projects. For someone named 'actorboy', you certainly do have a solid understanding of things.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7I sure do. Because I've been working in this industry for 15 years. I know how much residuals from home video sales have helped artists survive during the lean times between gigs. Here's how it work: Yes, the people are paid a certain amount up front. That covers a theatrical release or short initial run on television. When the project goes to DVD or into reruns, more money comes in the form of residuals. Why not just get paid once? Because that would dramatically raise the initial pay amount which would drive up production costs. Higher production costs = less films made. People who work on a residual-enhanced contract are taking less on the front end and investing in the risk of the movie. If the project is successful, the talent is paid more. If it fails, the talent makes less. Popularity = success only when popularity translates into sales. However, if the movie is distributed anywhere in the world for free, it doesn't matter how popular it is, because that no longer guarantees sales, but rather undermines sales. Why pay for something you can get for free? Starting to sink in now?
And for someone named brownstar, you sure sound like an *****. - Dmitrik, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1You missed the point where people still go to see the movie, after being recommended by someone who downloaded it or just someone who wants to see it on bigger screen.
And downloading never stopped people from buying the original DVD if they really liked the movie.
Whole "you won't buy it because you've already seen it" is wrong. I wouldn't even think of buying a DVD or go to a movie that I'm not certain is good.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7I sure do. Because I've been working in this industry for 15 years. I know how much residuals from home video sales have helped artists survive during the lean times between gigs. Here's how it work: Yes, the people are paid a certain amount up front. That covers a theatrical release or short initial run on television. When the project goes to DVD or into reruns, more money comes in the form of residuals. Why not just get paid once? Because that would dramatically raise the initial pay amount which would drive up production costs. Higher production costs = less films made. People who work on a residual-enhanced contract are taking less on the front end and investing in the risk of the movie. If the project is successful, the talent is paid more. If it fails, the talent makes less. Popularity = success only when popularity translates into sales. However, if the movie is distributed anywhere in the world for free, it doesn't matter how popular it is, because that no longer guarantees sales, but rather undermines sales. Why pay for something you can get for free? Starting to sink in now?
- br0wnstar, on 12/15/2007, -4/+4They're getting paid for their time regardless. Except now, with fame, they're more likely to be noted for other projects. For someone named 'actorboy', you certainly do have a solid understanding of things.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Explain how that works. It's better to be famous with no one actually buying your work than it is to be unknown but getting paid?
- DangerCollie, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8It's still a good point. How to translate the torrent traffic into actual revenue. If there was a way to do it effectively, you'd see more high quality independent productions. Groups could make their living producing content.
Exposure is important, so is eating. I wonder if people would be any more likely to buy a DVD if they knew they were supporting an independent group of filmmakers and actors? Not sure...maybe.
I'm up for trying if I can find the talent willing to invest in the project.- sodade, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4The real question is: can we get the cost to make a film low enough to enable a "blue-collar" moviemaker scene. Of course, you have to wean artist from the "make a movie = make a million" attitudes that are so prevalent due to the studio system. Exact same situation with musicians.
- br0wnstar, on 12/15/2007, -5/+11You're an idiot. Exposure is far more valuable to someone than complete obscurity. For directors and also for the cast and crew.
- moo113, on 12/15/2007, -0/+13We're not talking about music but movies, thus this falls under the cover of the MPAA, kid.
- hmunkey, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Click "reply".
- tsarstruck, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4OK, now what?
- Alix7, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0Isn't it failing under the cover of the RIAA?
double fail
- hmunkey, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Click "reply".
- krnldmp, on 12/15/2007, -5/+5This is why big money media wants to put a damper on BitTorrent and file sharing in general. Its not because their crap is getting stolen, its because its getting plain overlooked next to all the quality material flooding the market with honest talent.
- bl4h, on 12/15/2007, -4/+6no
- fkr3, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Right ... maybe in some bizarro world the most popular torrents are indie stuff but in the real world indie and legally-free stuff are incidental on p2p.
- blueZhift, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2And that honest talent may lead them in directions that they don't want to go, and cannot control. I think the greatest fear of digital distribution is the loss of control rather than loss of potential profit. In fairness though, no one has really figured out how to make money in this new world. But I think it is fair to say that most artists want their work to be seen first, and then be able to make a living off of it second. If the first doesn't happen, the second certainly won't!
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4I think it's safe to say most artists want to eat first, and then worry about how many people see their work.
- hmunkey, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Actually, everyone still downloads the popular movies by the major studios. Indie films don't even get a 1000th of what mainstream films get. Nice try though.
- krnldmp, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Right. Hence this article.
- RobotBuddha, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3As insane as it might seem, for the most part, "big money media" really do think they put out the best possible product out there. At least in the movie industry, the people making the "It's funny because she fell down!" material actually think they're making a really solid product with some artistic merit. Well, not at all levels of the process. But it's borderline scary just how many people in charge of making a movie really think they're being creative with their paint by numbers material.
- a22e, on 12/15/2007, -2/+8As an aspiring independent film maker I fully plan to release my movies on BitTorrent for free. But for the 'real' fans of my work I hope to sell DVDs that are slightly higher quality and contain numerous 'DVD only' special features.
- DangerCollie, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1And I think that will work. The question is how well? Will it be enough for you, the cast and crew to all make some money? Or just enough to make another movie?
Or how about a serial? I thought about a Spanish novella. Sell three episodes per DVD. Torrent the first two and then DVD only for the last three. If they're not interested enough to buy the DVD after the first two, you lost them anyway.- a22e, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2I really don't know how well it will work. but I consider this a hobby not a job, as long as I recoup some money I will be happy. I know this plan will never make me rich.
- cozb, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5and someone will put your dvd only episodes up and the same people who downloaded the 'free' ones will download the 'non-free' ones.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -3/+3a22e
I've thought about doing it myself. But the argument is that your distribution method should be your choice, not shoved down your throat by the pirate community.- a22e, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5This *is* my choice. As I said in my reply to DangerCollie, this is a hobby not a job. My goal is to entertain, and if I lose some money in the process, so be it.
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2Don't know who dugg you down, but I +1'd you. More power to you. I wish you all the success in the world.
- a22e, on 12/16/2007, -1/+2You don't happen to live in the central Ohio area do ya actorboy? I can always use more help!
- a22e, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5This *is* my choice. As I said in my reply to DangerCollie, this is a hobby not a job. My goal is to entertain, and if I lose some money in the process, so be it.
- DangerCollie, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1And I think that will work. The question is how well? Will it be enough for you, the cast and crew to all make some money? Or just enough to make another movie?
- captainpugwash, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2whats the best Bit Torrent only flick out there? ( in your humble opinion )
- hpymondays, on 12/15/2007, -9/+10I wonder what the people digging this story would do if they opened their paycheck envelope and instead of seeing a check they would find a note saying "You did not get your paycheck this month but thousands of people enjoyed your work, Mr. Smith. Keep up the good work."
- RobotBuddha, on 12/15/2007, -4/+6Man, I wish the government sent me a 'thank you' letter instead of just removing the money every month.
- MikeFallopian, on 12/16/2007, -4/+3But on the flip side, piracy causes people to obtain - and then talk about / promote - content that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
- Chirp08, on 12/15/2007, -4/+5does this apply to porn?
- garywoo, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1Dugg for "Boon"
- Chirp08, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1reminds me of Animal House haha
- stutimandal, on 12/15/2007, -4/+2Someone show this to Comcast and ask them to stop diverting or filtering torrent traffic on their network.
- Bense, on 12/15/2007, -3/+3I'm sure I'll get dugg down for this, but at least I'm being honest with myself.
Believe me, I have my fair share of piracy, but I would say that these legit legal movies being shared on torrent networks are mounds compared to the mountains of pirated, illegal movies.
I understand where the MPAA is coming from and I understand why they're pissed, etc, etc. But I'm just apathetic and download anyways. - Zzone, on 12/15/2007, -3/+4How could getting no return on an independent film, which is still a hefty and expensive production, possibly benefit filmmakers?
- actorboy, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3The Man from Earth:
"...has become immensely popular...received some 23,000 hits in the days....the 5th most popular one....feedback from everyone who has downloaded 'The Man From Earth' has been overwhelmingly positive. People like our movie and are talking about it, all thanks to piracy on the net!'"
Popularity doesn't pay the bills. Nowhere does Ernesto or the Producer quoted say anything about how piracy has actually translated into profits. Seems like this would have been a good argument to make his case. Why was it left out?
Day Zero:
"...has become popular online and is the 5th most seeded movie in the Drama category on mininova."
Again, no mention of how popularity is actually translating into sales.
Cashback:
"The reaction from the producer is understandable, but I dare to argue that the popularity of independent films on BitTorrent does more good than harm"
He dares argue it, but has yet to back it up.
The Corporation:
"... one of the first to realise that filmmakers can profit from BitTorrent..."
Show me some numbers. Can profit and have profited are two completely different things.
It seems that if Ernesto really wanted to make a point about how profitable piracy is the the film industry, he would have actually posted numbers. Or quotes like "We've sold XX amount of DVDs all because of piracy!" Instead the best he can do is offer up "popularity." But the popularity of your creative work among people who historically don't want to pay for creative work, doesn't mean profits. Or to translate an old piracy argument, one download does not equal one sale. - BoogieManOh, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2And musicians too!
- MikeFallopian, on 12/16/2007, -2/+1I think this effect relates to mainstream movies and music as well. Last month I downloaded a cam of the film Michael Clayton and enjoyed it. I recommended it to some friends and 5 of them payed $10 to see it in the theater that weekend. Likewise I've turned dozens of people onto various movies, tv shows, musical artists, etc. that I learned about from downloading. Courts should be aware of this when they consider the obscenely high fines per movie/song that people are getting slapped with. Word of mouth is very valuable.
- smek2, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Not to mention pirates ;)
- dickmontana, on 12/16/2007, -0/+0I have already made the decision to post up my feature as a torrent when we're done. It seems the only way to bring in for incredibly small pieces. You can sell less than a hundred DVD's or give it away to thousands or millions. I think it's a wise decision to young and new directors.
- MackPrime, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1if you guys downloaded a movie, prefaced with a trailer or two, and packed with a jpeg banner or something, would you mind?
- Biks, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3I am a filmmaker. I spent 3 years and $30,000 of my own money to produce a film. (Note: this wasn't gifted to me by a rich daddy...I worked doing corporate video for every penny.) At present, I am giving away my movie on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R83zY67lsYE
In summary: my movie tanked, and yes, it's "nice" to get feedback from cyberspace. I have this monkey on my back that most artist have..it's called mortgage/rent, car payments, heating, food. Why would I want to spend ANOTHER 30 grand and another 3 years of my life doing this, just so I can upload it to bittorrent? No budget, indie film making is a ***** bitch to do. The story above describes a nice way of doing artistic suicide. I tried going for the golden ring and was thrown from the carousel. Feel free to kick my corpse lying by the ferris wheel. (As I'm sure some of you will do.) :-/- Ratteler, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Translation: I suck at film and had no business plan beyond making a story that featured my George Lucas mullet.
You script is full of inside jokes, social cliches and bad one liners... then you have the BALLS to whine about how you didn't get your $30k back?
If you make a PRODUCT worth a *****, people will buy it. If you make a vanity video... well... you know how that ends.- Biks, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I'm assuming you HAVEN'T made a movie, your just another critic with an opinion. (see: kicking my corpse)
I know my movie sucks..that's why it tanked. Which critic here has the BALLS to try to make a movie on their own with their own cash? Fine, I have no talent. Which critic here has enough DRIVE to pull it off? My original point: indie film making is a ***** bitch. Anyone who hasn't done it, can't appreciate how hard it is. This if usually the outcome - getting punched in the face by anyone with an opinion...and you GIVE the ***** movie away. How is bit torrent going to make this process any easier?
- Biks, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I'm assuming you HAVEN'T made a movie, your just another critic with an opinion. (see: kicking my corpse)
- Ratteler, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Translation: I suck at film and had no business plan beyond making a story that featured my George Lucas mullet.
- mrk0, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1If you make a film and upload it online you void any opportunity/chance to ever make any money off of it. Putting a film online will instantly make it undesirable to any and all distributors the world over. In addition, putting your film online will make it ineligible for entry in to any film festival. This article assumes that filmmaking and the film industry is just like the music industry in that, the more people see/hear your material - the better it is for you in the long run. This is wrong. In the world of filmmaking, if you want a career, if you want to be taken seriously and if you want to make -any- money, you'd never ever ever ever make a film and put it online unless it was something you made with a few buddies for laughs.
However, I would agree that a film that has been picked up for distribution and had its run either theatrically or on DVD can benefit from piracy in a non-direct way in that people might download it and take interest to the point that they may want to go out and buy the DVD (if they haven't downloaded that yet either) - lolo2007, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0I have already made the decision to post up my feature as a torrent when we're done. It seems the only way to bring in for incredibly small pieces. You can sell less than a hundred DVD's or give it away to thousands or millions. I think it's a wise decision to young and new directors.
http://www.paramegsoft.com/forum/
http://download.paramegsoft.com/ - SlowDownandFast, on 08/19/2008, -0/+0An interesting model for self distribution. The issue then becomes are you going to make enough sales from DVD sales because of the buzz of "giving away" the film.
I think what this really illustrates is that their is a very hungry audience for independent film and I'm betting that many people would be willing to offer a small amount of money by seeing the film online as a video on demand. Especially if they understand that when they pay the filmmaker for content, the filmmaker will get to continue to make more content.
The real issue is getting these films to your audience
Hopefully there are enough sites as well as filmmakers out there that will get their films out to the right audience.
Adam
www.slowdownandfast.blogspot.com - a blog about one filmmakers journey for self distribution of their film
www.blindlylefilms.com/slowdownandfast - the link to the film.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is