I'm in it?

"Backyard Blockbusters is, at time of release, not available anywhere [useful]."

Great. Get back to us when it's available to see.

Looks exciting
Actually, one quote in there that I found really interesting was from io9.com that filmmakers should be worried that independent and amateur makers can craft such fun, exciting films that may be better than some of the original source material.

I think that the professionals could take a cue from backyard makers given the level of passion and desire that these people bring to the works.

This is great. I really hope streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Instant pick this up and that they start making it a habit to make little indie films available. That should provide a modest revenue stream that just putting it on YouTube or bittorrent can't, just in case it takes off.

I guess it depends what your goals are. Getting the thing watched by a significant number of people is one potential goal, getting it accepted into a very narrow distribution channel that might provide some monetization is another. Frankly though, these things are kind of 19th century - the people who will pay for this will pay for it regardless of whether they can see it for free, and the people who won't pay for it will see it free regardless of whether you or someone else put it on bt. You're better off uploading it to bt and asking for donations.

Aha - you misunderstand me for comic effect! I do think the idea of making it difficult for people to see you movie through your channels unless they give you money is from the 1800s. If the paid version is more difficult to use than the free one, well, we know where that leads...

Trey - your analogy is a little baffling. Cars are physical objects. If I steal a car, then someone else doesn't have it any more. Making a digital copy is not like that at all - if someone makes a digital copy of something, they have it, and so do you. Nothing is stolen.

There certainly seems to be a lot of nostalgia for the days when copying an idea (the contents of a book, the arrangement of bits in an mp3, or the arrangement of pixels in a movie) was synonymous with creating a physical object (a book, an LP, or a VHS tape), but that isn't the case any more.

As to whether anyone would make a media project and make it available for free, there is a vast amount of material licensed and released like that. Take a look at www.sitasingstheblues.com for an example. The free software movement, creative commons licensed music etc etc.

As for organizations that make their money this way, NPR is an obvious example of an organization that makes its money like this. In fact, it's hard to find an industry that produces digital goods that works the way you suggest that isn't heading for bankruptcy.

The bottom line is that the choice is not between wether or not to make it available for free, but between whether or not to make the paid option more difficult to use and get than the free one.

Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-29 21:46:22)

The South Korean music industry would disagree with this statement. Despite global trends, music sales continue to grow in South Korea, and around half of all music sold is through digital distribution channels.

The industry does not operate on a "pay if you want to" model, rather they use a common sense (not heavy-handed) approach to copyright enforcement.

What you're describing is a sub-set of local social attitudes to digital media, not the panacea for sustainable business.

For more information on this topic, take a look at http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2012.pdf

...

*blink*

Are you trolling?

Seriously? Are you? What can you possibly even mean by that? I suppose you think that you view on copyright is so obviously correct that anyone who holds a different view is a troll.

I hope that you can understand that I am genuinely baffled by your take on this - it seems utterly impossible to me that a smart personal alive in the 21st century could believe what you seem to.

Teague - we're back at the 'things' analogy. How can I explain to you how a physical thing is different to an idea? If, indeed, I came to your house and drank all your wine, you would not have any wine. If, however, I came to your house, and you told me a joke, and I told it to someone else, I would have copied some information you gave me. You would still have it.

That's not theft.

With regard to the industry you work in, and how you wish the world was different so that it would be easier to make a living, I do understand that. It's just not reasonable for a particular industry to hold back technology and progress in order to prop up a business model that used to work. Imagine if the buggy-whip manufacturers had managed to convince Congress that every horseless carriage sale was the theft of a sale that would otherwise have gone to them?

Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-29 22:19:51)

Now we're getting somewhere. If I were a professional joke writer, I think I would want to get paid by the hour, because the idea that it would be illegal for someone to repeat a joke they heard is horrific to me. I hope it is to you, but at this point I am not sure.

I for one don't want to live in the kind of world where we have to mail residual checks to joke-writers, or worry that we might be overheard by copyright police 'stealing' jokes.

The fact is though that a joke is not (in most instances) a copyrightable thing. Nor should it be.

Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-29 22:23:18)