Megaupload Shut Down

[1871]

Chores are for children. You can work for pocket money if youre a good boy.lol.

Re your question. Thats because I dont support SOPA....

Quote: ]Writers Guild Realizing That SOPA Goes Too Far; Union Support For Censoring The Internet Begins To Crackfrom the well,-look-at-that dept

Supporters of SOPA have been trying really, really hard to pretend that this bill is a "jobs bill." They keep touting the "union support." They try to downplay that the bill is really designed mainly to protect the big Hollywood studios from having to innovate (while their execs take home record salaries and the industry itself brings in record box office revenues). But it appears that the unions -- even those representing content creators -- are realizing that supporting legislation that props up the giant gatekeepers isn't in their best interests either. The Writers Guild of America West recently made the rounds on Capitol Hill to talk about a number of issues. On the list? How SOPA will do more harm than good:

On the House side, Keyser and Barrios met with Reps. Henry Waxman, Howard Berman, and Janice Hahn. They thanked Waxman for his strong support of Guild issues and discussed concerns with the recently introduced Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Because Berman is a co-sponsor of SOPA, the pair discussed their concerns with the bill’s implications for competition and an open Internet. Although the WGAW strongly supports combating piracy, the competition, First Amendment, and due process concerns the bill creates must be addressed.
It seems that the folks who represent content creators are recognizing that SOPA goes against their own best interests as well. By setting up a system that props up the gatekeepers, rather than encouraging new tools and services that help content creators directly, laws like SOPA don't actually help the creative community at all. It's nice to see that WGAW recognizes this, and don't be surprised if other groups of content creators start realizing the same thing pretty quickly.

SOPA is flawed - because its protectionist for special interests instead of addressing the entire issue. But the idea that people dont have a right to protect their labour is purely the talk of those who exploit - try to use their own rules on them and they soon squeaL Its one rule for them another for someone else. You dont eat in a restaurant and expect not to pay the chef, the people serviing the food, the kitchen staff by pating for the food they prepare for you

And how do you think Tech makes a living and gives you the music you like ? - by being an IT consultant or gettiong a student grant? lol

[Djoser]

Tech has stated in an interview long before, "Burn my music, do whatever you can to get it". and he is the President of Viper Records so he makes an income through other means. Plus, being on tour, that's cha-ching right there.

I'm not defending piracy saying it's all good. I'm just against the "piracy is all evil" rhetoric that supporters of SOPA/PIPA are spouting, which you are doing the same. It's hard to address the "cause" of the issue when a dire prevention attempt comes forward. Plus, if Megaupload had used had used the money gained differently, wouldn't you have a different opinon of them? You just seemed to be in blind rage against the founder's use and collection of $175m. Who knows how much Mediafire has made, let alone Rapidshare.

Plus, there have already been methods employed by creative communities to counter piracy rather well without giving consumers shit to work with. "Steam" offers lots of content for free, and when you do feel the need to buy a game from them, it's dead cheap and doesn't feel like a real investment. Music artists have used bandcamp to successfully promote themselves, purely on the digital front though.

And "large-scale" piracy is the issue, right? Given current conditions, I doubt it'll go away, but wouldn't the method of how it's conducted have to change in order to do less damage?

[Younes]

Journalist - "How you feel about bootleggers?"

Sticky Fingaz - "Man Bootleggers can suck my dick, you knamsayin? I tell people to not buy from bootleggers, but you know, some people in the ghetto can't afford the money to go buy a real tape at the store & represent us and help our record sales, but i'm saying like yo: If you gotta buy a bootlegged tape to hear my shit then so be it."

[Midnight EyeZ]

[1871]

Quote:djoser
I'm not defending piracy saying it's all good. I'm just against the "piracy is all evil" rhetoric that supporters of SOPA/PIPA are spouting, which you are doing the same.

nah - re read my post - thats not what I said.

This is what I said

Quote:1871

The issue is large scale downloads of hundreds or thousands of cds and films where the same user is too fucking mean to dig into their pockets to pay one cent to the film makers and musicians work they are downloading.
It isn't about you watching a movie online and then going out and buying the cd or DVD - musicians and filmskers think that's great. Its about people not buying cds or DVDs AT ALL and how scammers like megaupload make millions without ever paying a cent to the film makers whose work they profit from. Did you allow the company to not pay you for the work you do today?

^
See where I even put in in capitals there? I should have said in the first sentence not just the user but the supplier of other peoples music he profits from without paying anythng to the performer. Schmitzie was a scammer.

[Djoser]

I had mentioned that in one of my posts about this. I posted so much I can't remember. Anyway, if Schmitzie had payed those people, the issue wouldn't have been this bad, right? Minus those who don't support the people they like at all.

[1871]

No - if Schmitzie had paid most of that 200million to the performers ok. He and his team could still have been millionaires.

[shakur420]

It's funny how the root problem is being ignored. Middlemen and executives make the dough, there's too much knowledge now about how the music business works, about indie artists making mad loot off merchandise, touring and supporters for me to believe that the problem is illegal downloading. It's not, the problem is an attachment to an outdated model and artists of all kinds are aware of this and have abandoned it. I remember when my first kid was born, in the hospital I picked up a few magazines. I think it was XXL that had this huge article about all these major label artists that were going independent because they were tired of the model. They seen how indie artists were making more money selling significantly less albums. For established artists who have money to bankroll the recording and pressing stages and have a solid fan base, there's absolutely no need for a major unless you want some rich white guy - or rich black guy who wishes he was white on some Carlton shit - leeching off your income. Bone Thugs and Fat Joe were a couple of the artists I remember. The Martyr had what, hundreds of thousands of downloads? You think that doesn't add to Tech's revenue when he goes on tour after it's dropped? Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, how many other super low-budget, indie films have made millions and millions of dollars because middlemen and ridiculous salaries were excluded? I should give a fuck because Bruce Willis wants 20 mill to pretend in front of a camera? Because Cameron wants to turn a huge profit on 3D technology? This justifies paying $20 for a movie ticket? $20 on popcorn and pop? lol

If you care about people getting paid for their work - not creating art, but producing something or performing it - then attack the corporate model of advances, middlemen and signing over master rights. Trying to point the finger at consumers who can't afford to pay $15 to "check out" your album, or programmers who figure out ways to let people like me watch old NFL games means you're ignoring the root cause. Just like "terrorism". When you point to a guy's spiritual belief as the cause of his actions, ignoring the slaughter of his family, the chocking of his local economy and the blatant warfare against his society, talking about his terrorism is absolutely worthless. You're ignoring the root cause and so you're not really addressing the problem. You're talkin shit. You care about people gettin paid? Knock the corporations who inflate prices, not Joe Blow who, along with the artists, has been getting raped up the ass for years and has now moved to alternatives.

Though I have to agree that people's money is being affected. It's probably more on the executive and corporate end (you can look at the distribution of album revenues, I've posted a breakdown somewhere in the spot before from an organization that provides support to indie artists or some shit), but artists are not getting the advances they used to, personnel is probably getting cut, you know, guys working the boards, pressing CDs, sweeping offices and booths. That's just common sense, so much is digital, artists talkin about doing records over the net or at home studios (you can check out Conspiracy Radio interviews where artists are talkin about this shit). It's pretty well known that lots of major label artists are broke, or makin very little money off album sales (remember why jewelry, cars and houses are rented, advances are given and recouped, etc.), but this was going on way before digital downloads, again, it's because of the corporate model, not the consumer's spending habits. Wu Tang's success and merchandise is an absolute perfect example that money for artists comes largely from things outside of album sales (actually, stories about your favorite band's debut album will tell you how much they made from that vs touring, interviews, appearances, etc.). No doubt, downloading without paying means smaller budgets for films, effects, stunts, high-end catering, luxurious talent riders, assistants and gophers, sets, costumes, equipment, limos, red carpets, etc. but that's not really my problem, is it? Because the rich and famous want to be surrounded by luxury and decadence, I'm suppose to care? lol, maybe if they hadn't charged us up the ass at the movie theatres and record stores for decades, I could believe that the corporate world who's driving the cause of intellectual property actually gives 2 fucks about the cameramen, sound engineers, stylists and carpenters who make honest livings in this business.

In a statement talking about SOPA, representing corporate interests, there's mention of about 2 million Americans who are involved in film and TV, domestically. It's hard for me to believe that this number is only the executives, shareholders, extravagantly-paid talent, etc. It probably includes the real workers, the camera operators, sound technicians, stage hands, runners, assistants, make up and wardrobe people, etc., etc. Those are real people with real lives that earn salaries/wages off some things we get without paying for. It's not just the 1%, who I don't give a fuck about, that are going to loose jobs or see their salaries slashed because of declining sales. There are people that work in movie theaters who will be affected negatively and severely by the massive drop in ticket sales. My dad is in the business, he worked for Famous Players for like 25, 30 years or something. I worked as an usher for like a year, my first job. His shit has to do with sound, the sound systems and he's worked for other companies since, but I've always heard about how real workers are affected in that aspect of the industry when sales go down. I don't think we need to press the dude for "evidence" that real workers are negatively affected by illegal downloading, it's almost common sense. But the debate is framed very strangely. Instead of discussing the corporate model that artists are forced to be dependent on, a situation where the company's profitability affects the artist's income, it's being turned on the consumer. Instead of discussing the stubbornness of corporations who are sticking to outdated models and price gouging to ensure the wealth of middlemen, it's about the morality of "stealing" art. lol, so instead of talking about the occupation, the rejection of peaceful solutions by the major, dominant players, you're talking about the little Palestinian kid who's had enough and blows himself up. Or Hezbollah's commitment to stay armed, etc., etc. It's a false framework. lol, I mean for fuck's sake, there isn't even any mention about the big money, the ads. The companies that pay to have their ads on YouTube, etc. I think SOPA addresses the advertisers but the whole debate about illegal downloading has these big holes, corporate/middlemen entitlement to massive profits and the involvement of advertisers. Seems like some of these companies who are listed as supporting copyright protections have no problem advertising on YouTube videos with illegal content. lol, I've seen Ford commercials beside YouTube videos of songs, etc. Caught their name on one of those lists. These companies don't give a fuck about artists or real workers getting shafted, they give a fuck about profits.

And I can't believe people are overlooking the most important thing. Swiss Beatz is the CEO of Megaupload? What the fuck??

[1871]

Blair Witch Project was picked up by Steven Rothenberg at Sundance and distributed through Lionsgate/Artisan. This is the company bid for by Marvel Enterprises a $4billion subsidiary of Disney. Paranormal Activity is owned by Paramount a subsidiary of Viacom.

Owning the product ensures its exhibition and distribution - without which a film doesnt make its return. Capitalisation of a film requires the distribution being in place beforehand usually to secure funding of production.

The comments re film budgets - youre talking about the higher big studio level for a film - not most of the films being made. Most films - save for the big Hollywood films doesnt really have those things, but the film-makers are still affected by piracy by Hollywood;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13050005/ns/...n-scripts/

and box office revenue (thats if a film-maker is lucky wenough to get their film distributed;
;

http://www.quora.com/How-much-income-doe...-to-piracy

Basically the less a film-maker makes in revenue on their film Advances are a good thing. Especially for writers.

You can get films for £5 a month where the revenuers go to film-makers; http://www.findanyfilm.com/

or you can pay nothing. Of course nothing goes to the red carpaets but also nothing goes to the film-makers - any film-makers.


Films being made cheap isnt now the issue - since new technology means that films can be made cheaply even by computer. Films cost money to make (musicians, actors, feeding the crew etc)and costs also figure in marketing - so film makers need an upfront capitalisation.

How do you get upfront capitalisation? By secured access to a market. This is a problem because the market is controlled by gatekeepers who own screen time and control the market. So in other words you can make yuor film (if you are lucky to have upfront capital - or can do it cheaply - Blair Witch cost $20k. But nowadays with the advance in software you can do a lot on the computer.

So you get film-makers like Mdotstrange - who makes a film - cheaply (and still does) but who studio execs want him to sign away rights into perpetuity or some shit like that. He can still release the film via the internet but theres not the same funding - thats a reality. It doesnt stop him making his film but determines what he can do.

It is not that the 'old model' - that is, in terms of distribution/ cinema exhibition is redundant - it isnt. Internet film makers want access to that market because its where the money is and film-makers need money to make films.

Film-makers can be told to be inventive - (as Blair Witch project costing $20k to make was, but the audiences dont want to see the same low production values when they can see Avatar for up to $310 million (not to mention $150million on fmarketting) and without free access to exhibition film -makers cant capitalise further projects.

So when, as a student John Carpenter made this (one of his best films because it was so inventive - note the 'low budget sets);




he got distribution to make this;




^ which again increased production values (more budget) so he could then make this;




all these actors, crew, effects, locations, sets, helicopters sfx have to be paid for. Universal own the film hence the recent 2011 prequel etc - ploughing money from the previous success into the next.

Indie can only get it by going through hoops such as film festivals - which are a gatekeeping process. In most countries there is a certification fee (in the UK its £1k) if you want to sell a dvd. Internet film-makers havent yet found a way to fund projects by the web alone. People point to film-makers like Joss Wheedon who made the web series Doc Horrible
which gathered a large audience - but he made it with $200 and access to studios film facilities and help from friends in the film industry. plus he had made Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and three features prior to this. Spielberg could probably hit the million mark on a pay per click view, but he brings the audience with him on the basis of his work seen by cinema audiences.

Yeah - Swiss Beatz endorsed a well known retailer who claimed they had cleaned up their act - yet you read things like this;

click on the report - the fist link in this its interesting;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develop...eet-brands

---

Quote:but he made it with $200

^
that should be $200 thousand.

---

Quote:Second, does piracy affect box office sales?

In 2005, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) argued that they were losing $3 billion in box office sales due to piracy. In an industry that takes in less than $10 billion annually, this is a significant claim and, if true, a major concern. (2)

De Vany and Walls use data on one movie’s 14 weeks of box office revenue and associated online piracy activity ("including eDonkey 2000, BitTorrent, Gnutella, FastTrack, Hotline, FTP, Usenet and Internet Relay Chat") during that period to develop a statistical method that is immune to the “nobody knows principle.” (2, 6) In their words,


We did not have to pose the counterfactual conjecture asking what the movie might have earned but for piracy. Nor did we need to speculate as to how many viewers of the pirated version might have gone to see the legitimate version in a theater. What we did do was to test directly the impact of pirate supply on the rate at which the movie’s theatrical revenues declined during the course of its run.


Their data shows that the availability of pirated copies are meaningfully similar to the availability of paid copies in terms of magnitude and time (i.e. it's both easier to find a movie online and offline on opening weekend).

They fit a regression to estimate the changes in box office revenue based changes in movie supply and sum the weekly effects driven by the availability of pirated versions of the movie. For the single movie on which they had data, they estimate that piracy directly destroyed $40 million in box office revenue. Overall, the film grossed approximately $61 million or around $600/pirate source. (7)

•Assuming that De Vany and Wall’s data is representative of a typical movie with typical levels of piracy which seems reasonable to me, it’s possible that 40% of box office revenue of a typical film is being lost to piracy.

^
And thats for the US.

[1871]

As for the re-imagining of this process, thats more of a subject again.