Slashdot Mirror


Hollywood Studios Fuming Over Indie Studio Deal With BitTorrent

silentbrad sends this quote from TheWrap: "'It's a deal with the devil,' one studio executive [said]. 'Cinedigm is being used as their pawn.' Cinedigm announced this weekend that it would offer the first seven minutes of the Emily Blunt-Colin Firth indie Arthur Newman exclusively to BitTorrent users, which number up to 170 million people.... Hollywood studios have spent years and many millions of dollars to protect their intellectual property and worry that by teaming up with BitTorrent, Cinedigm has embraced a company that imperils the financial underpinnings of the film business and should be kept at arm's length. 'It's great for BitTorrent and disingenuous of Cinedigm,' said the executive. 'The fact of the matter is BitTorrent is in it for themselves, they're not in it for the health of the industry.' Other executives including at Warner Brothers and Sony echoed those comments, fretting that Cinedigm had unwittingly opened a Pandora's box in a bid to get attention for its low-budget release. ... 'Blaming BitTorrent for piracy is like blaming a freeway for drunk drivers, ' Jill Calcaterra, Cinedigm's chief marketing officer said. 'How people use it can be positive for the industry or it can hurt the industry. We want it help us make this indie film successful.' ... 'We'll be working with all of [the studios] one day,' [Matt Mason, BitTorrent's vice president of marketing] said. 'It's really up to them how quickly they come to the table and realize we're not the villain, we're the heroes.'"

12 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. and WHO are the movie studios in it for, us? by d00m.wizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    really?

    --
    * A world imprisoned screams with pain There are no leaders you can blame Your avarice destroyed your sphere And the
    1. Re:and WHO are the movie studios in it for, us? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm astonished that the studio executives own intestines didn't spring forth and strangle the man for such blatant hypocrisy. I'm astonished that politicians aren't on television right now saying "Yeah, that's some pot/kettle 'black' shit right there. I'm astonished any reporter he was talking to didn't kick him in the balls. I mean, I probably would have done all those things. Simultaneously in fact.

    2. Re:and WHO are the movie studios in it for, us? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Screen Actors Guild is really uptight about making sure that every actor everywhere is in their union, to the point of fining its members if they perform in the same piece as an actor that isn't part of that union. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to kill this either, namely because indie studios might be more likely to stay away from that union because they can't afford to pay what any of its members demand.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:and WHO are the movie studios in it for, us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's simply because gutless worms have no intestines.

    4. Re:and WHO are the movie studios in it for, us? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Screen Actors Guild is really uptight about making sure that every actor everywhere is in their union, to the point of fining its members if they perform in the same piece as an actor that isn't part of that union. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to kill this either, namely because indie studios might be more likely to stay away from that union because they can't afford to pay what any of its members demand.

      If that leads to a series of entertaining films coming out that don't contain any members of the Screen Actors Guild, they're really going to be up shit creek.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:and WHO are the movie studios in it for, us? by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Informative

      As an aspiring independent filmmaker, it's not really as bad as you make it out to be. There are very affordable indie-extremely-low-budget rates for us, and waivers and what not that can be had. Film permits, on the other hand...

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  2. Bittorrent != piracy by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we need is to stop the delegitimization of torrenting as a file transfer method. Equating torrents with piracy is ridiculous on it's face, it's nothing more than a means of transfering ANY data that's use legally all over the place. i haven't downloaded a linux distro the normal way in years, steam uses torrents, the list goes on.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:Bittorrent != piracy by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      that's like equating tors silkroad with drug purchasing. there is literally tens of other things on there.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  3. As an indie filmmaker... by dex22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an indie filmmaker, I understand the dilemma. Granted, I'm at the low end, and don't get to work with name actors, but the problems stay the same until you have to start worrying about territories and distribution - and this is a dispute about controlling distribution.

    If I invest, say, $20,000 of my own money in a project, I need to be reasonably confident about making at least some of that money back or I don't get to make another movie. I don't have a patron or rich lover to fund what I do, so... I have to not make consistent losses.

    Facing this reality, the main way I make money is through private showings in indie theaters, selling disks direct, and then when the economic potential of the production seems tapped out, sticking it somewhere accessible so at least it is seen by *people*.

    That doesn't really work. I don't know what else to do. I have a couple of really fun hard sci-fi ideas I'd love to develop, but the audience is hard to reach and still get paid enough to just cover my costs... Or I can participate in the conventional distribution system and be SURE of making no money.

    Unless there's some rich benefactor or wealthy single lady out there *grins* my really very specialist movies have no chance of being made or seen by a wide audience.

    Bittorrent breaks the distribution problem, but doesn't help the money problem.

  4. Re:I don't get it by chilvence · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does no one ever consider the possibility that perhaps $10 million for a lead actor is a slightly over the top wage for the challenge of 'looking pretty while pretending to be someone else in front of a video camera for a few months'?

  5. Re:I'd support Cindigm even if its a crappy movie by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't give a shit if it is the worst movie I've ever seen. I'm going to buy the blu-ray edition when it comes out. I hope they sell more copies than any movie ever. With a little luck that will cause some of the movie execs to die from apoplexy.

  6. Re:Indie - pendent by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Informative

    Champions of "indie" cinema take note: Cinedigm is simply a production/distribution division of Technicolor, (yes that Technicolor), a multi-billion dollar Hollywood production service company that operates as a vendor to all the Hollywood studios. Several of the producers have ongoing relationships with Technicolor and Focus Features, a division of NBCUniversal, which is handling distribution of the film in several foreign territories. Cinedigm is the US film and animation industries.

    This entire thing is just Technicolor putting up a tiny film, probably entirely produced with UK Lottery Fund money and North Carolina tax credits, as a stalking horse/advertising experiment. The film has no stars to speak of, it was probably going to die an unlamented death on pay-per-view before they upgraded their marketing campaign to full Viral mode.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.