Tom Morello (The Nightwatchman, Rage Against The Machine) surprised the occupiers at Los Angeles City Hall with a rampaging acoustic set featuring “This Land Is Your Land”.

If there was a social contract in this country, not only would America NOT be at the bottom of countries in terms of fairness and justice (check out the graph linked to the post), but we’d recognize how support for the arts, and culture in general, is part of what civilization should be.

I love it when you can see how things you care about — or even wish you did not have to care about — are linked. I hate junk mail and have tried to find ways to free myself from it for years. Now, thanks to this video, I have a new love of it. I can use it to take action.

Our financial institutions are service industries. The dialogue does not have to be one way. I wasn’t being mindful until I saw this video, and realized that it didn’t have to be.

Within days, Congress will vote on legislation that could cut 100% of funding for public broadcasting, which includes $3 million to fund programming operations for New York Public Radio (WNYC and WQXR), plus an additional $1.25 million for innovative, original programming. These proposed cuts threaten WNYC and public broadcasting as a whole. 

170 million Americans rely on public radio and public television for trusted news and perspective and programming that brings the arts to everyone — for a minimal investment of $1.35 per U.S. citizen per year. 

You can make a difference — contact your representatives in Congress to let them know how you feel about federal funding for the independent journalism, thought-provoking news, conversations and cultural programs you hear on WNYC.

I encourage you to take action now to let Congress know what public radio means to you. 

• Click here to send a pre-written (and editable) e-mail. 
  
• Or call your representative in Congress at (202) 224-3121.

Your support for public radio helps our democracy thrive. Your voice now can make a critical difference. 

The Librarian of Congress provides some guidelines on what to nominate for next year’s registry at the Film Board’s website at www.loc.gov/film. To be eligible for the Registry, a film must be at least 10 years old and be “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”  I list my recommended films on last year’s post.  My list is not changing this year.

To nominate films, send up to fifty titles to:

dross@loc.gov

The FCC meets today and proposes regulations that could seriously undermine net neutrality.  It generally appears that corporate interests are being looked after, and we are headed towards a tiered internet where providers can favor some content over others.  Prepare to get really upset.  Prepare to do something to fight back and protect a free and open internet.

Al Franken says it is the most important free speech issue of our time.  VC fund, Union Square Ventures, recommends prohibiting “application-specific discrimination”, and that seems to make good sense.

You can watch it all live right here starting at 1030A EST.

To go a tad deeper, Zak Forsman posted it well:

Minutes ago, I received this email from my friend and fellow filmmaker, Justin Evans.

Dear Film Professionals -

Section 181 has finally been renewed! The new Tax Bill was signed into law by President Obama earlier today. The tax law includes Section 744, which includes language that replaces IRS Section 181’s expiration date of December 31, 2009 with December 31, 2011.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4853enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4853enr.pdf

Here is what this means:

• Any money spent on qualifying domestic film production* in 2010 now qualifies for the Section 181 tax write-off.
• Any money spent on qualifying domestic film production* in 2011 will also qualify for the Section 181 tax write-off.
• There is no gap in Section 181 protection…which means all the fear and worry that someone might have begun a project in 2009, somehow didn’t get the financing in place and investors invested in early 2010 can now breath a sigh of relief.

Read all of what Zak has to say about it here. Thanks Zak!

Mr. Hackford, president of the DGA, was recently speaking at the Content Protection Summit and Variety reported on it. Reading the article I remain unclear as to what Hackford’s point is about piracy beyond that it is bad and we need to make it a real concern of the industry. He seems to be saying that if we want to protect our content, we have to be willing to give up on a free and open internet. He claims groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press as enemies. Shutting down a free and open internet is not the path to solving the piracy problem; it is the path to a closed society that favors a class or capital over access and opportunity — and that is the antithesis of what we need to do.

We can not create a system that favors the powerful, the connected, or the well capitalized. The Film Business already favors all those niches quite well, and government and utilities should do all they can to provide for all equally.  Equality under the law and within the society remains one of the greatest ideals, and personally speaking, I would rather have a world that strives for that ideal’s enforcement, even if that striving has to support some bad apples, rather than risk that anyone does not have equal access or equal opportunity.

Hackford was insightful to link Hollywood’s focus on event pictures to piracy, in that if piracy is eroding film’s revenue — or even thought to be — then investors will be more likely to put money into the projects most likely to generate the quickest return and the most unique experience.  The insight would actually make sense if individual investors were backers of event pictures, let alone studio pictures.  They rarely have such opportunities.

Being someone who has depended on private equity for all but a few of my 60+ films, I have never once heard an investor confess concern about piracy (and granted some of that may have to do with their education on the issue).  I do have investors express concern about distribution opportunities, access to markets, cost of promotion, and difficulties to reaching audiences.     I do hear people intrigued about using the systems that have been developed by pirates and copy-forward advocates to reach audiences that they have not reached before.  They know that the system has to change and recognize the realities of the time we are living in.

I have witnessed first hand, and was one of the key witnesses, in a successful anti-trust suit against the MPAA for coercing the studios to take action that unfairly hurt independents in the process.  That case, popularly known as The Screener Ban, used piracy as the fear that prompted excluding the key marketing tool of Award Screeners from all filmmakers’ arsenal.  The powerful often look out for their interests without even consulting the rest of the industry about their practices.  When Dan Glickman took over at the MPAA, he was quite vigilant at soliciting the indie sector’s opinion on the state of the industry, and I hope his successor remains as committed.  I hope whomever takes over the MPAA recognizes the necessity of our culture industry to commit to a free & open internet or else exclude a serious sector of our community.

When it comes to protecting artists’ rights, piracy is a serious issue, but open and free access to a public good (i.e. the internet) is a greater one.  We can not look at short term solutions that have long term repercussions.  The focus on the piracy issue tends to take place at events that exclude a large portion of the film community — namely the truly independent artists that will never have access to the studio system.  We need institutions, organizations, and methods that make sure to include this segment’s voice — and that includes the DGA.

I, and artists everywhere, will not be able to support ourselves — and thus generate new work — if our work is widely stolen and we are not compensated.   Mr. Hackford is right on when he speaks of the need for passion and education when it comes to the issue of intellectual property theft, but as we enter that discussion, we need to strenuously protect the greater ideal of equal access and opportunity.  We also need to recognize human behavior and the current state of things — people want convenience, but they also want other things.  The large media corporations have done little to offer a better option to theft.  Our methods of licensing and distributing work relies on out of date analogue models.  There are actions that can be taken, by artists and businesses, and it is hight time that we begun this discussion in earnest — but let’s not abandon the ideals as we start the march down the road.

Save the internet!

This weekend, voting is well underway for IFP and Slated’s Festival Genius Audience Award for the 20th Anniversary Gotham Independent Film Awards. This first-ever award gives audiences from all across the country the chance to pick five of their favorite films that took home an audience award at one of the Top 50 US and Canadian film festivals in the past year. After you, the people, have spoken, your voices will be heard on November 10th when the five finalists, the first-ever Festival Genius Audience Award nominees, will be announced on both IFP’s and Slated’s websites. This award is a fantastic, unique opportunity for you to give your favorites of this past year one last round of applause, whether you’re just a casual festival-goer or die-hard movie buff. And also, when you vote, you’re also automatically entered to win a one night’s stay at the Andaz Wall Street in New York City and two tickets to the 20th Anniversary Gotham Independent Film Awards on November 29th at Wall Street Cipriani. So go vote THIS WEEKEND at http://gothamawards.slated.com … and then run to tell your friends to vote, too. Awards season starts here…and it starts with you.

The executives said the biggest issue they face is sorting through a proliferating array of distribution platforms and figuring out when and where to release their movies and at what price in order to maximize profits. Such staggered release strategies are known in Hollywood parlance as “windows.”

Read the full post, but my takeaway is that the indie sector needs to figure out new ways to experiment and gain both understandings and footholds.

The Internet, the last free, open and diverse democratic medium, is under attack. Net Neutrality, which provides that no content is favored over any other, and that content creators have an equal opportunity to freely disseminate their information, is being imminently threatened by media mega-conglomerates and their vassals. It is urgent that we fight those who would sacrifice our freedom for a profit. Net Neutrality will be the savior of independent art and commerce if we preserve it.

Read all of it on Save The Internet here.

In 2010 it’s easy to forget how profoundly the Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate, interact and access information. When you logged on this morning to check your email, bank statement, or local news you may not have noticed that there are very few limits placed on the sites and services you have access to. While some people must crash the couch of their best friend to catch the latest HBO release, since he’s subscribed to all premium cable channels while they’re still stuck with rabbit ears on their TV, no one has an edge over anyone else when it comes to what we can access on the Internet.

Yet this principle of net neutrality that allows all sites, services and applications on the Internet to have equal access to consumers, and vice versa, is being fundamentally threatened. Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to revise rules that have kept Internet Service Providers (ISPs) at bay for decades. These companies, like AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, would love to become the gatekeepers of the Internet, reserving preferential bandwidth for those sites and services that make them the most money.

And I can guarantee you HopeForFilm is not one of those sites. While offering thoughtful critique of the film industry, HopeForFilm, like most online communities that have sprung forth from inspiring ideas that can only be fostered online, will perish if service fees force all but the super-rich from accessing and producing online content.

While there’s a broad coalition of supporters that lobby for responsible telecommunications reform ensuring net neutrality, the issue has been bogged down for years in technical and policy jargon. The conversation has stayed behind closed doors, not because it won’t have a drastic and potentially life-altering effect on Americans, but because those leading the fight for net neutrality have predominately favored petitioning Washington over telling the compelling story of how the loss of an open Internet will affect our daily lives.

Recently my research group, the Harmony Institute, published a communications guide that hopes to bring much needed attention to this pressing issue.  FTW! Net Neutrality For The Win: How Entertainment and the Science of Influence Can Save Your Internet was written to inform people working in a diverse range of fields, including media and entertainment, on the looming threat posed to the open Internet. The guide is part of our mission to harness the power of entertainment and mass media to tell stories about key social issues, such as the fight for net neutrality, that will resonate with a broad audience and promote action.

The guide explains how we can use the untapped potential of narrative to increase support for net neutrality.  Telling stories about how vital the open Internet is to our livelihoods is the key to getting people to take notice and take action. Using recent polling results and behavioral science theory, the guide offers seven communication recommendations that can be applied to new media projects, as well as existing media campaigns.

I truly believe that today is the day for you to invest in igniting a broader, more passionate conversation about net neutrality. It may be easy to allow this concern to take a back seat when an unstable economy, violent conflict abroad, and an environmental catastrophe dominate our headlines. But you realize that the open Internet, safeguarded by net neutrality, influences how we understand and interact with almost everything else we care about, it’s clear that maintaining our rights in this respect is not only a personal, but also a national priority.

So, how do you get started? I encourage you to download Net Neutrality For The Win today, and become part of the rapidly growing community of Americans who care deeply about preserving the open Internet for all.  Its free and it will help you be more persuasive with your friends and readers, online and offline around this issue that is going to affect each of us. Get your free manual here: www.savemyinternet.com [link: The New York Times profiled John and The Harmony Institute earlier this week.

John S. Johnson is the Director of the Harmony Institute, a research group that studies the application of behavioral science to communication in media. He consults with media creatives, socially conscious film funds, and production companies to help their work achieve concrete, positive change in specific target constituencies. Johnson is also the co-founder of Buzzfeed.com, a trend detector and platform for transmitting contagious media. In 1997, he founded EYEBEAM, a MacArthur and NEA funded non-profit art and technology laboratory in New York City. John is a Henry Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute and editor of a book in production titled “The Atlas of Art and Capital: Business Models of Art Production for Artists from 340BC to the Present”.

Independent filmmakers and producers from New York are accustomed to change and challenges, and as of this week, they will have yet another hurdle to jump.  As of July 11, 2010, the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, the MOFTB, has begun charging filmmakers a $300 fee for film permits.  Historically, New York City has not charged anything for film permits.  New York City has joined the ranks of other cities, such as Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, and Seattle, all of which charge fees for film permits.  When the proposed rule was announced in April, it generated mostly negative reactions; concerned filmmakers signed petitions against the rule, believing that the fee would diminish New York City’s claim to being the capital of the independent film world.  Some scoffed at the fee, unable to see how an extra $300 charge could affect a film budget.  While opinions may vary, the fee is certainly changing the climate for independent filmmakers, no matter how large their budgets might be.

Veteran producers assert that the $300 fee is the second step in New York City’s evolution towards becoming a less filmmaker-friendly city.  The first major change occurred in August of 2008 when the MOFTB required filmmakers to obtain permits for shoots that involved anything more than a handheld camera and then in turn required filmmakers to carry liability insurance of at least $1 million in order to obtain those permits.  Basically, ever since August 2008, filmmakers have had to pay the implied charge associated with the cost of obtaining liability insurance if they wanted to film in New York City.  The new $300 fee, however, is the first explicit charge on filming in New York City.

The $300 fee is officially called the “New Project Account Application Fee.”  The MOFTB deems the charge as an “application processing fee,” not a location fee.  The $300 charge will apply to the application process for each project.  The New Project Account application will be valid for the period of continuous photography for a film and for the duration of one season for a television series.  The fee was developed to help offset the City’s unprecedented budget cuts; the MOFTB analyzed the administrative and personnel costs that it incurred each time it processed a new project application and came up with a fee of $300[1].

Not everyone will have to pay the $300 fee; the MOFTB will waive the fee for applicants who can demonstrate “unreasonable hardship.”  The MOFTB does not define what “unreasonable hardship” means in relation to the $300 fee, but its website explains that those who can show that the cost of obtaining general liability insurance imposes an unreasonable hardship will also qualify for a waiver of the $300 fee.  The MOFTB considers the cost of obtaining insurance to be an unreasonable hardship when it exceeds 25% of the filmmaker’s budget.  When looking at the applicant’s circumstances, the MOFTB also considers the filmmaker’s projected budget as well as the projected budget for similar productions.  Still, it is unclear exactly who can qualify for the waiver of the $300 fee.

Over the years, the Bloomberg administration has successfully made New York City a more desirable location for film and television shoots by providing tax credits to complement New York State’s production incentive program.  Now, many question whether the $300 fee will undo the City’s progress and discourage independent filmmakers from choosing New York City as their production location.  However, New York City is not alone in its policy of charging for film permits.  Surprisingly to some, the $300 fee falls square in the middle of the range of fees that other city’s film commissions charge; filmmakers with productions in Los Angeles pay permit fees of $625 for two weeks of shooting, and Chicago’s film commission charges $25 per day per location.  Still, many cities that have emerged as desirable locations for independent filmmakers, such as Toronto, New Orleans and Austin, charge no application or permit fees.  Unlike New York City, however, those cities require productions that call for vehicle or pedestrian traffic control to hire police officers.  Toronto, one of the most filmmaker-friendly cities, charges between $65 and $84 per hour per officer, and Austin and New Orleans charge only slightly less.  In its favor, New York City proudly offers free police assistance, which is one of the MOFTB’s most valuable services for filmmakers.

Will the $300 application fee push independent filmmakers away from New York City?  Mayor Bloomberg was quoted as saying that the fee comprises only a small percentage of production budgets.  Although this rings true for studio productions, projects that operate on low budgets might no longer choose to film in New York City due in part to the new fee.  Student filmmakers might also feel the blow of the $300 charge.  Now, currently enrolled New York City film students can avoid the requirement of carrying liability insurance by showing proof of insurance through their schools, but it is unclear whether schools will assist their students with the $300 fee.

While the change to the MOFTB’s rules for issuing permits raises many practical considerations for filmmakers, it also sparks debate about whether the fee will impact New York City’s standing within the independent film community.  Is the fee counter-productive to sustaining New York City as the capital of the independent film world?  Does the policy of charging an application fee for film permits reflect New York City’s appreciation for the role that independent film and filmmakers play for the City?  Is the MOFTB looking too much to Los Angeles as a model for how to capture capital from the City’s film industry?  New York City will never be able to match Los Angeles in terms of big-budget productions, and Hollywood will likely always remain the capital of studio film productions.  However, New York City has emerged as, and will hopefully continue to be considered, the capital of American independent film.  Along with tax credits and free police assistance, the City provides free parking privileges, free access to most exterior locations, discount cards, and also millions of dollars in free advertising on City bus shelters and New York City-owned media assets to promote productions that shoot at least 75% of their projects in New York City.  Producers love these amenities.

Further, New York City has several independent film theatres, it is the base for many independent film festivals, and is home to numerous independent film producers and enthusiasts.  Low-budget films reflect the values that are important to New Yorkers; those films that revolve around well-written scripts and intellectual topics rather than special effects and star power provide a counterpoint to Hollywood flashiness.  Just as New Yorkers sing their City’s praises when in the company of Los Angelinos, the New York independent film industry prides itself on the fact that the movies they create and support do more than just entertain.  Independent film is important to New Yorkers and to New York City.  We sincerely hope that the MOFTB will administer the $300 fee in such a way that reflects continued support for the art of independent filmmaking.

Steven C. Beer is a shareholder in the international entertainment practice of Greenberg Traurig’s New York office. Steven has served as counsel to numerous award-winning writers, directors and producers, as well as industry-leading film production, film finance and film distribution companies.

Such chaos would almost inevitably lead to a call for mandated government-agency oversight of Hollywood accounting, and that, to studio thinking, would be Armageddon—albeit an Armageddon that would be celebrated by everyone who has ever been promised a net-profits check that didn’t arrive. In the space of just a couple of days this month, a jury demanded Disney pay $270 million in damages for wrongfully withholding profits on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, another found that actor Don Johnson was owed $23 million by the producers of Nash Bridges, and Nikki Finke’s Deadline website posted a leaked balance sheet in which Warner Bros. appeared to demonstrate that the movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which grossed $938 million worldwide, is somehow $167 million in the red. Given that statistic, perhaps stockholders should inquire whether any studio movies ever realize a net profit, and if not, why the people who run those studios are still employed.

If we are ever going to have a sustainable investor base for our industry, we need to bring the reporting and accounting practices up to the standards of other industries.  It’s time that we develop a list of best practices of what needs to be done to reach this goal.  I will add it to my To Do List in the meantime.