SpringBoardMedia

Uh-oh movies here's Pet Society

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:22:00 +0000

Reading my NYTimes today - in print, slowly - I kept bumping into some interesting articles with a lot of relevance for the film industry. Everyone in the film biz knows that videogames are increasingly beating cinema for dollars, that's nothing new. But three articles in today's Times sum up the problem.

1. In the article "A Game That Takes Aim at Bigger Screens," Seth Schiesel reports that video games are now reaching the holy grail of providing a genuinely cinematic experience (that's his grail btw, I always thought most of us are waiting til it's an even better experience). He goes on to say that "Uncharted 2: Among Thieves" actually got him to buy an HDTV - something no film had made him bother to do. Gaming 1, Cinema 0

2. In the article "Online Warfare Prompts an Offline Crash in China," Michael Wines reports on the wars between two Chinese government agencies over who gets to oversee (governmentally) World of Warcraft. He reports that online gaming in China is already an almost $3-billion business and that "50 million people crowd the Internet cafes of China on a regular basis." I haven't read any similar articles about how hot the film business is these days lately, and nothing approaching those numbers. Gaming 2, Cinema 0

3. But the absolute best article and the game winner for gaming is this quote from Sara Merrill of Parsonfield, ME about why she spends money to buy virtual goods in the game Pet Society on Facebook:

"It's an experience, like going to the movies. That's how I describe it."

And that's the problem for Hollywood, and all content folks. It's an experience - and that experience becomes more valuable today as our time is crunched, we have tons of options and content is free. We value what is worth our time, and increasingly it's an experience. There's good reason that video games are increasing in popularity - they are participatory, they offer an experience. She, and millions of others, are making the market for virtual goods into what is now a $5-billion annual business according to the Times. She's not buying an actual product, she's buying an experience. She plays this game 5 times a week with her two kids by the way - not an insignificant amount of time. Very few parents take their kids to 5 films a week anymore (if they ever did). The article - " Virtual Goods Start Bringing Real Paydays" by Claire Cain Miller and Brad Stone was on the front page of the Times today. That's what film is up against and as of now, in today's Times, it's Gaming 3-0 vs cinema.

Note- I'm not linking the articles. I found them in print, and the Times now makes you register to read them online. I am a print subscriber and I can't be bothered to take the time to tell the Times this to get my free access - thus, the idiots don't get a link. But I'm sure you can google the articles and read them for free somewhere else. And when the NYTimes dies, we can all read them somewhere else online for free without having to register.

Radar on Eclectic Method

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:28:00 +0000

This Radar video on Eclectic Method is pretty great:

Eclectic Method - Radar Series Documentary Short from Eclectic Method on Vimeo.

The future of film and Pepin WI

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:13:00 +0000

I just returned from Pepin, WI the home of the great Flyway Film Festival. It's a small, regional festival with a lot of heart, and I had a great time. I met some great people, mostly filmmakers but also some local audiences and business owners, and saw some interesting films. The festival takes care of you - if you ever get invited, go, as they have great hospitality and it's an all-around good time. I was asked to attend to give a keynote at their opening night, and to speak on a panel. Below is the approximate text of my speech - I use an outline and ad-lib most of this stuff, but I think this text captures it well.

The Speech:

Thanks to Rick Vaicius and all the staff of Flyway for bringing me here to Pepin, WI. I’ve never been here before, and I’m delighted to be here speaking with you tonight. I’d also like to thank the sponsors of this fest, as I know they can never be thanked enough and I’d like to give a quick thanks to all of the attending filmmakers, because if it weren’t for you and your films we wouldn’t be here tonight. I want to talk tonight about the state of the film industry, the changes of technology and how Pepin fits in. I think that if you bear with me, we’ll find that it’s all interconnected.

It may come as a surprise to those of you in the audience tonight who aren’t filmmakers or film “people” but the film industry is in a bit of a crisis. Sky falling, batten the hatches, we all may die crisis. Or so everyone keeps saying. From most regular folk’s seats, that may be hard to understand - what with 500 plus channels on the TV, Netflix, Redbox, YouTube, 3D, Blu-Ray and yes, even Pirate Bay, it seems like a time of plenty for film. But these same things I just mentioned are part of an intricate puzzle and as of this moment it seems that as we add each piece we are slowly seeing the full picture and it spells DOOM.

Briefly - digital has been a disruptive technology that has upended the film world. Everyone knows what has happened to music, and we’ve seen it with print - books, magazines and particularly newspapers - and now it’s happening to film. I don’t need to go into detail - you either know this or you can imagine it. In theory, it is now cheaper than ever before to make a movie, and there are more mechanisms than ever before to get that film to an audience more cheaply than ever before. But it still costs money to make a good film, and someone usually has to buy it and take it to market. And filmmakers, and their investors would like to get paid and make a living. But whether you are a filmmaker or a company the situation is the same - the business models aren’t working anymore.

But the reality is - this isn’t new. The film business has always been a bad business except for a few exceptions. I think the crisis we find ourselves in today in film mirrors the general economic crisis facing our world today. As Warren Buffett has said - it’s not until the tide goes out that you see who is really wearing shorts. Well folks, the tide is gone and we now see that we’d been in a bubble and there was a lot of funny money but no real value. Likewise, in film, the tide is out, and many a bad business model has been exposed.

The old model for film was one of scarcity. For the most part, we watched Hollywood films exclusively because film was expensive and scarce and hard to make. We didn’t have many other options. Even with indie film, it was pretty expensive to make and the marketplace was hard to figure out - in theory, the audience for indie/art films was scarce too, and finding them was expensive. Even with TV and then VHS and DVD, there was a scarcity model - films were still expensive to make, manufacturing and distributing DVDs was expensive. Everything was built on scarcity.

But digital changes that. Everything is ones and zeros and a copy is free. And everyone can make one, and copy it and spread it to friends. Copies are now ubiquitous. Copies are now superabundant, they are no longer scarce.

When content is no longer scarce, we need to look at value differently. What’s valuable now?

Well, my time is much more valuable. I have lots of options. I don’t have to just watch the Hollywood movie, I can watch anything, or a remix of it. What is scarce is my attention. My attention is a new form of value.

Films are everywhere - anyone can make one, copy it, rip it, trade it, remix it. People say there’s too many films, too much to choose from, but back when I used to walk into a record store, I never said, there’s too many bands. So what did I do - I listened to my friends, to my peers, to critics and other musicians. I listened to people I trusted and that’s what’s valuable now - curation from a trusted source. This, to me, is one of the big values of a thing like Flyway - Rick’s curation. He’s reached in to that grab bag of thousands of films and curated something for this community. That curation is now valuable.

What also becomes valuable is authenticity. In a world of abundant copies, free or pirated material and fakes, I value authenticity. Authentic stories, authentic experiences that aren’t duplicable. That’s what we find here in Pepin - real people, watching films, with filmmakers having an authentic experience we can’t get elsewhere. I’ll pay for that, and I’ll value it more than it costs.

Small becomes valuable. It’s easier to find authenticity in small, but it’s also true in life. As Margaret Mead said - “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Well, small films can change the world. The problem is it’s always been difficult to reach small groups with mass media, thus broadcast. Well now, small films can find just the small audience they need online much easier than ever before. And it’s through small fests like this that we can build a new model for support of filmmakers. Everyone talks about DIY today, well the old punk DIY ethic was built on playing in small clubs - not unlike this room tonight, playing to real fans, going around in a van, but by reaching that core audience, one could make a living. I think it’s true again now for film.

Because with small, we can connect. Connection is more valuable than ever before. I’m connected now on Twitter, Facebook and every other social network. This has real value - Rick found me through email, reaches me on Twitter and the filmmakers here started talking before they even arrived. What’s valuable now is this idea of being connected directly to the band, the artist, the filmmaker. I can now support the filmmaker directly, buy their film from them. Through micro-payments, I can become a direct supporter of their film and they can get it to me before it becomes a mass release.

But it goes deeper.

It’s about a participatory conversation. Technology allows this, but I think it’s something audiences have been wanting for a long time. It’s no longer a one-way broadcast to many. It’s a dialogue between the artist and the audience. People can now talk to the artist during the making of the film, during its release or after it is out there. They may want to interact by making their own version, remixing your footage and sending it back, or sharing with others. It’s no longer a one way street. It’s why many artists are working with cross or transmedia - the idea that there story might be bigger than a film and include a graphic novel, or a game, or user-generated content - it extends the story and let’s the audience interact more with the art and at times, the artist. In a simplistic way, it’s also another way to get people to pay for content - they may not want just another copy, but they value paying a price to come here, see your film and hear you in a Q& A afterwards, and maybe meet you over a beer. Conversation makes for a richer experience.

But for many, this is also scary. I used to think filmmakers were afraid of technology, but they’re really afraid of dialogue. Conversation is hard. Being an auteur and having your final say on a story is much easier. But historically, this is an aberration, a blip. We used to have call and response, actors and dancers and storytellers had to react to their audience more directly. The audience reaction and demand informed their art. It was participatory. It was a conversation, and digital allows that. It’s not easy, but I think it is crucial to the art form.

We as artists and audiences need to embrace this new conversation. We’re faced with a lot of possible futures of where media might go. Big media - Hollywood, Murdoch, TV - they don’t like this conversation. They want a fancy one-way TV set where the only interaction is you buying some product they are selling. It’s what we’ll get unless we dream for something better - and to me, if the internet just gives me more things to buy and less conversation, less new story-telling and less access to genuine, authentic voices then we’ve failed.

So that’s how I see the connection between new technology, Pepin and the future of storytelling. In summary -

Curate - Tell others, spread indie culture, be a trusted source and support those like Rick who are;
Authentic - Demand and pay for authentic experiences;
Small - Think local, connect small communities. It’s easier than ever before;
Participatory conversation - engage in conversation, and as artists make this easier for your audiences.

We have more tools to help connect us - to connect our storytelling to audiences and to engage with them in a cultural conversation. These tools are often found online - but they help connect us in the real world, and they can also be found at festivals like Flyway. I believe we can use these tools to build the future of film culture. No one knows where the future of film lies - anyone who says otherwise is lying or wrong - but while we can’t predict the future we can, in the words of Alan Kay, build the future. The best way to realize the future of film is to take advantage of the tools we have available, both online and in Pepin, and start building.

Power to the Pixel Videos

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:50:00 +0000

The videos are up on Babelgum from this year's Cross-Media Film Forum of Power to the Pixel at the BFI London Film Fest (that's a mouthful!). Mine is linked here, but watch them all - there's some good stuff here.

My fave was the Age of Stupid tag-your-it approach to panels:

Power to the Pixel

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:18:00 +0000

Here in London at Power to the Pixel for a little while longer. It's been exciting, learned a lot from other panelists, met some great filmmakers and could feel a real change in just one year - lots more nodding heads (in agreement, not sleep) than last year. Many filmmakers in my meet the expert session were much better experts than me, and doing some cool stuff. More on that soon, but I'm uploading my presentations below. Video will be up soon on PTTP and Babelgum. I was asked to deliver a presentation I've done before. So, the first one, on living with free is not new, just a couple slide updates. If you've seen it before, skip it. Second one was an hour.5 workshop on how to use social media to build audiences and funds. I added a few new things, but some have seen this. But for those who hasn't they are below:

PTTP London Film Forum Speech

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

PTTP09 London Film Fest Workshop

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

Araya, Flyway, OpenIndie, PTTP and other SFTF

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:17:00 +0000

Some updates on current cool stuff:

I had a chance to catch Araya this week, and have to say - it's beautiful. Go see it now at IFC Theatres while you can see it on film. It's a great restoration of a lost film by the folks at Milestone (who re-released Killer of Sheep) and it's a beautiful print and a beautiful doc story. The NYTimes review suggested it was a snooze, and that couldn't be further from the truth - I was fascinated the entire time. Highly recommended.

My friend Signe Baumane emailed me to let me know her great film Teat Beat of Sex is available on DVD. In typical Signe fashion, it's a hilarious, over the top animated film with 15 short "lectures" on sex. Order now.

I'm speaking soon at the Flyway Film Festival. Their schedule is up online now, and I'm impressed with the line-up as well as with the great tweets by their director Rick Vaicius @flywayfilmfest. I'm also speaking soon at Power to the Pixel's Cross-Media forum at the London Film Festival. My speech promises to be a snooze, but the other speakers are great.

There's been a lot of press about this lately, but kudos to Arin Crumley and team for launching the campaign for OpenIndie. It's a great idea for indie film community building that should be supported. It's just a beginning, but an important one. Check it out.

Last, a non film related plug - The absolute best part of my summer has been visiting Governor's Island as often as possible. This is the last weekend of the season, so if you haven't been go there now.

Just a few cool things on my mind today.

Swing for the Fences (SFTF)

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:30:00 +0000

SFTF is my new Acronym For The Future of Indies

Thanks to Ted Hope’s speech at TIFF, there’s been a lot of buzz about DIY and DIWO lately. I now propose a new acronym - SFTF.

WTF?

What? Why? Let me explain.

TechCrunch just held their TC50 event, a tech start-up pitch session that I didn’t attend in person but followed sporadically online. Soon after, Sarah Lacey (a reporter with TC critiquing their own event, imagine this happening in Variety (WTF??)) posted an article entitled “Memo to Start-Ups: You’re Supposed to Be Changing the World, Remember?” where she reported the feedback from many of the pitchees, panelists, VC’s and others behind the scenes, and many complained that no one was really pitching the next big idea. One tech guru said he didn’t care if “one of the companies he judged, succeeded or failed because it was so meaningless in the world.” Others said that some of the pitching companies could succeed, maybe sell for $100 million, but they still wouldn’t care. Why? Because none of them were trying to be the next “big thing” that changes the world, and that’s what they think everyone, especially in Silicon Valley should be aiming for (this is a gross oversimplification, read the article). This paragraph sums it up:

I did interviews with most of the TechCrunch50 experts backstage and there was a common gripe about the companies launching there: Not enough passion, not enough swinging for the fences, not enough trying to change the world. There were too many people building safe businesses, too many companies just trying to make existing things slightly better, and too many people wanting to be the next Mint.com, not the next Google. Nothing against Mint, but Silicon Valley wasn’t built on $170 million exits.

This resonated with me me in thinking about the current state of indie film. I’ve written a fair amount about the changes I think we need to address, but I think the TechCrunch article spurred me to realize what I think is my main complaint (and wish) - there’s not enough “swinging for the fences” out there, not enough focus on “changing the world” and that’s precisely what I think is needed - and hope to see more of soon in film - we need to all swing for the fences and try to change the world. Thus SFTF (quick aside, I could have chosen CTW, but it’s so Sesame Street).

Obviously, there are exceptions to this generality, so let me be clear up front - I’m not saying that no filmmaker, no nonprofit, no entertainment company, and no one else is doing anything interesting or game-changing, nor am I saying I’m not guilty of some of the same behavior I castigate here. Rather, I am saying not enough people are focused on really SFTF, and that’s the only thing that interests me. Sure, not everyone needs to change the world, or change it the same way, and not every film needs to break new ground. But I’m very uninterested in the status-quo and it seems to me that most proposals and ventures I read about in my sector are more snooze-inducing than awe-inspiring. We need more people SFTF.

I read a lot of proposals for films, read too many scripts, watch pitches at festivals and markets regularly and while I watch less films than I did as a programmer, I still see more than the average person. It’s increasingly rare to find that filmmaker that is really trying something new - be it through narrative structure, documentary style or (god help us) new story-telling methods. It’s even rarer to find someone who has thought about their audience, the impact they want to have (even if impact means not saving the world but making me piss my pants laughing) and how they might use new methods to reach their audience, raise their funds and make a living.

Too many distribution companies are doing the same old routine with every film they have and seem oblivious to the fact that we’re (collectively) not doing a good job at reaching audiences. Many exhibitors seem scared to death of the changes facing the field, but few of them are trying anything new to change the system. Film festivals, even good ones, are doing the same thing year after year. Even many of the new platforms/companies that have launched are still using an outdated model - essentially trying to bend the new realities of the web to their existing business model rather than truly do something new and amazing. Worse, some are exploiting filmmaker’s lack of knowledge about these changes to keep intact an unfair system that doesn’t serve filmmakers or audiences (nothing new here, really). Many of the nonprofit organizations supposedly serving filmmakers (including youth media) have settled into routines that seem better fit to filmmakers of the 70s than those of today. Don’t get me started on the trade publications...anyone who reads them knows how out of touch they are.

Now, to stop being negative, I do see some very positive examples of “big ideas” in film. People like IMPACT Partners have sprung up and become arguably more influential in effecting change than many of the largest foundations. The MacArthur Foundation has been funding innovative new experiments by people like BAVC, who are helping filmmakers harness new technologies in their projects (disclaimer, I’ve also received their funding, so maybe I’m biased). The San Francisco Film Society has gone from a nice festival and screening organization to a regional powerhouse supporting filmmakers and audiences in entirely new ways, and in some aspects is becoming a model for the nation. Filmmakers like Thomas Allen Harris are thinking about how their films can do more than just play on PBS, but can spark the imagination of their audiences, engaging them as participants in bigger projects. Journalists like Karina Longworth and Anthony Kaufman are smartly bringing film criticism and reportage into the digital age, while maintaining integrity and putting forth insight that often exceeds that I received via print. Industry leaders like producer Ted Hope are prodding the industry to wake up and smell change, and be active in creating the future. They SFTF.

These are all good signs, but recently I was speaking with someone about how many people/organizations we think are truly SFTF and between the two of us, we counted very few beyond the examples above. I got interested in film because I’m just barely old enough to remember the excitement of that time when indie film was rising and seemed so vibrant - anything was possible, and the next, new, exciting vision was right around the corner. People then really did SFTF even if it was DIY, DIWO and helped by IFP, the NEA or AIVF. I still get that sense of excitement, of seeing an entire industry transform now, but seldom from film - I get it now from people launching new web companies, iPhone apps or platforms like Spotify. I get it from my ten year-old nephew’s stabs at machinima and those doing it more professionally. I get it from crazy viral videos and from new gaming platforms, but rarely are these revelations coming from anywhere near the indie film world. Yes, I still love movies, and festivals and filmmakers and every last one of you, but that sense of excitement is often missing from the air. I see a lot of DIY, and some DIWO, but very few people seem to be SFTF.

In her article, Lacey makes a stab at what was missing from TC50. Speaking of start-ups she points out that:

If what they’re trying to do makes clear business sense, a bigger, better-positioned company would do it. A start-up’s only edge is that it’s not built into legacy businesses and preconceived notions and can do something, well, crazy.

Replace start-up with indie and you have a business plan for the future of indie film. I think this spirit of craziness is what’s needed for indie film today.

So my new mantra is to Swing For The Fences and support those who do - SFTF.

Conveniently, this is appropriately and aconymically close to WTF, the exclamation you should make when you see someone who has SFTF. I can’t always say what it is, but I know it when I see it, and I usually say, “man, this is genius, WTF,” or even better, I don’t understand it for days or weeks and am left speechless. SFTF should be the new mantra instead of or in addition to, DIY or DIWO - those are great slogans and great business plans today, but let’s now support those who aim sky high, even if they fail.

P.S. Do I expect this phrase to catch on? No, not as an acronym, but boy I hope it does as an action-plan. SFTF, SFTF, SFTF....

Addendum - In searching for an image to accompany this article today, the first Google Images result was the great photo included here, linked from a blog post by my friend Jacques Thelemaque talking about the need for filmmakers to SFTF in their scripts, so I guess he needs some credit here as well.

DV Republic Debate and Free

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:40:00 +0000

Boy, it seems I'm speaking a lot about "Free" lately. My article on how to make money in a world where everything is increasingly free was in Screen International and while I don't see many comments online, I got a few via email. Next up, I've been invited by Warrington Hudlin to participate in a debate called "Steal this Film: Is the Only Place Indie Film Can Find Justice Outside the Law?" with Neil Sieling. The description:

Content holders are suing their consumers, creating an environment where media users are are pitted against the content rights holders. The digital appropriation enabled by new technologies could be seen as a new era of media abundance rather than theft. But is this justice?

Neil is a great guy I've worked with before, and he thinks a lot about new directions in media, so I doubt this will be a heated debate, but it should be an interesting way to explore the topic further. I'm glad that Warrington actually set the panel up this way - it's less about two opposing views than two people trying to think smartly about how content creators might fare in the current media/economic climate. I'm especially glad because I've not been trying to be such a supporter of "Free" as espoused by Chris Anderson. Rather, my argument is that given that many things are increasingly available for free or cheap to consumers via advertising supported models, Redbox, Hulu, Pirate Bay, etc (even if the content costs money to make, host, deliver) then we should at least think about how we can still create value and possibly make a living. I also think the knee-jerk reactions of the MPAA, UK government and others aren't going to help matters. Anyway, you can learn more about all of this if you join us at the debate.

The panel also features a session on journalism:

Journalism faces fundamental challenges in the digital era. From the economic viability of print media to its status as a "trusted source" , this debate is whether journalism, as we have known it, is doomed and whether or not we should care.

Ty Ahmad-Taylor (Founder of FanFeedr and digital media veteran of MTV Networks, Comcast, and @Home)

Errol Louis (Columnist, New York Daily News and radio talk show host WWRL 1600 AM)

The two panels are moderated by Omar Wasow of Black Planet, and should be great.

A couple weeks later, I'll be back at Power to the Pixel, speaking about this topic again. Luckily, I have a workshop as well where I'll get to elaborate not just on free, but how to use new tools to better build a fan base, find an audience and raise funds for your film/media projects. Looking forward to the events.

Age of Stupid World Premiere(s)

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:38:00 +0000

I've been writing and speaking a lot about innovative film distribution models and I keep referencing "The Age of Stupid." Well, it's finally getting a huge worldwide release and you can attend in just about any city. Check out where they are playing, go see the film and look around their website for some great self-distribution clues.

Living with Free - DIY Days Philly

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:16:00 +0000

Way back before my long vacation, I went down to Philadelphia to speak at DIY Days Philly. It was a good time, and I learned a lot from many panelists - although I am learning more now by watching the videos online of the panels I missed. My presentation video has been posted:

You can also look at the slides that accompanied the presentation here:

Diy Days Speech on "Free"

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

Perhaps one day soon, I'll combine the two so there's a presentation with audio. In the meantime, I think the panel that held the most interesting stuff for filmmakers was actually this one on music:

Distribution by the Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:37:00 +0000

While away on vacation - from electronic communications as well - SXSW put up their panel picker. I've proposed a panel for them called "Distribution by the Numbers." The idea is to get some real data behind all these distribution options out there. This is something few distributors want to talk about usually, but it's very important to filmmakers. So, if you like the idea, give it a vote here, and feel free to suggest co-panelists to me. I have some potential folks in mind, but am always open to ideas.

Filmmaker Demands Right to Lose Money

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:29:00 +0000

I moderated a panel yesterday for the New York Latino Film Festival entitled "Web Distribution, The Future is Here but how do Filmmakers Maximize the Movement?" We had a diverse, but all male, panel of experts - Warrington Hudlin filmmaker and founder of the new CastandCrewofColor.org, Slava Rubin of IndieGoGo, Alex Rivera the filmmaker behind Sleep Dealer, entertainment attorney Fernando Ramirez and Josh Green of Emerging Pictures. The conversation was pretty far ranging about how to find your audience online, as well as new distribution strategies (not all online) and a particular emphasis on reaching the diverse audience that is America, especially Black and Latino audiences. Great conversation.

We also spent a fair amount of time bemoaning the state of the indie film marketplace and the fact that it's become even more difficult to recoup your investment on any film made for above oh, say, $50K. Alex Rivera noted that to make his film he needed $2 million to accomplish what he wanted to do artistically. His sale of the film post-Sundance and his net returns from that distribution were decidely less than this investment. Nothing new there, of course, it's the rare film that actually is the financial success that filmmakers dream about. But I liked what he said about it -

" Filmmakers need to demand the right to lose money."

The audience laughed, but he elaborated that not all films are meant to be profit centers. Some art will never remake their investment, but need to be made as they are part of our cultural heritage. Furthermore, as a Latino filmmaker, he feels strongly that he needs to put forth an image of Latinos in society that's different than what mainstream media portrays and what many people think of when they think about Latinos. He doesn't make films just to make money but because of a greater cultural and social need - as well as an artistic one.

He went on to say that funders - both private and governmental - need to respond to this need. He particularly bemoaned the fact that the NEA hasn't stepped up and told the audience that filmmakers need to start demanding that they help fill this role. Warrington countered that while he agreed with the sentiment, the history of the NEA - particularly who would end up making decisions of what gets funded - doesn't bode well for this, but agreed that funders need to fill this gap. Coming from a place where I've mingled with this world pretty regularly, I don't see much hope for this - funders now want to see "impact" and other buzz words and tend to support only social issue docs (worthy of course) as opposed to art or narrative cinema. I do like Alex's sentiment, however, and agree that artists should defend their right to not just create what the market will bear. (knowing full well, of course, that they may not make a living!)

image: Alex's website.

Help Northwest Film Forum

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:34:00 +0000

I got this email today from a friend at the Northwest Film Forum in Seattle. I'm a big fan of this theatre, and hope a few of you will join me in helping them out.

Friends, compatriots, and loved ones, I'm here with what could be the biggest small ask of my life.

I am writing to you to ask for your help. I am asking you for $10, the price of an average movie ticket. The Film Forum has had done many great things this year, but much like other organizations our income is off by 30%. And while we remain scrappy and imaginative in tough spots, this time is different.

We are looking at real changes at the Film Forum unless you say yes and support us. We need to reach a goal of $70,000 by August 15. Please walk it in, mail it in, or visit www.nwfilmforum.org to make a donation.

You and 10,000 others are receiving this, which means you regularly find our emails and enews in our inbox, which means that you care, too. Maybe you even love what we do and believe the city is a better place - more sophisticated, inspired, or just more fun -- because of the films we show here, the summer filmmaking camps we offer to kids, the screenwriting and film editing classes we schedule, the filmmakers we bring to town (and the classes they teach), and the movies we are so instrumental in getting made.

Classes, filmmaker support, equipment rental, special screenings, and film series, many of these programs may be put on hold, shelved, or stopped altogether without your small gift. That means programs such as Soul Nite and ByDesign could go. It means fewer masterpieces such as "Silent Light" showing up on our screens. It means maybe no more camera rentals. Jobs and programs are on the line.

So, as the movie voiceover says, imagine a world: imagine a world in which people can open a door and find community. Imagine a world in which emerging filmmakers can receive the advice, equipment, collaborators and support they need to make their movies. Imagine a world in which anyone can register for classes to get the tools they need to enter the fields of screenwriting, editing, and video production. Imagine a world in which you can see movies that change the way you see the world. Imagine a world where you can find people of a like mind for inspiration and community.

Fifteen years ago we did that, all of it. To summarize what the Film Forum provides the city would take a much longer letter, but if you are a member or regular patron you have a pretty good idea already. You already believe in what we do.

You can keep all this, now, for the price of a ticket at your average movie theater. It's tough out there, we know that; we have tried our best to keep moving ahead in spite of the current economy. But now we know that some of what we do and provide will go dark without your support.

I am asking you urgently. If you have benefited from our equipment, from the images on our screens, from our classes, from our network of people, from our famously great parties, we are asking you to say yes, you believe, yes you can give $10. Yes.

Please make a donation here.

DIY Days

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:00 +0000

I'm looking forward to heading down to the sixth borough, Philly, this coming weekend for the DIY Days Conference. I was just in Philly a few weeks ago to speak to PIFVA and this time I'll be talking about how artists make a living in a world of free. If you live in the area - and with the Chinatown and Bolt Bus prices, the "area" is pretty far, I highly recommend attending. Check out the schedule.

On another note, I lived in Philly for a little while post-college and always love the chance to visit again and visit McGlinchey's and it's siblings! I highly recommend this book of photos by a former bartender there. If only I'd had that idea while sitting there....

Free thoughts on Free

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:59:00 +0000

Nothing like a book about selling everything for free, as a way to make money, to get the whole darned web-o-sphere riled up. Not to mention the old content industries and a few others. Sheesh, come on people, haven’t read a purposely provocative, only half-true article before. Guess you didn’t read that last one about the long-tail either, huh? Like the Long Tail, Free is only partially true, but what it says is nonetheless important to anyone thinking about, well, just about the future of anything.

First, the Long Tail - a lot of people thought this meant (as Anderson kinda said) that previously niche content would suddenly become a lot more popular because of the ability of folks to use the web to push value “down the tail,” so that suddenly videos of old avant-garde movies would make as much money as Spiderman. That’s not quite what happens with the long-tail, and it’s not what Anderson really proposed, but it’s what lots of people believed enough to create crazy businesses upon it. All the long-tail really means is that if you aggregate a lot of the long-tail, then all those itty-bitty revenue streams for niche content can add up to something approximating a financial success.

Duh.

This is nothing new; the web just amplifies this age-old truth and makes it easier. Of course this is simplifying things, but long-tail-story-short, it’s the rare piece of niche content that gets rediscovered because of the web and suddenly becomes a minor hit. More often than not, the value accrues to the aggregator, and as many sub-aggregators are finding out now, it really only pays when you are an uber-aggregator, like Amazon. That doesn’t mean it’s not great that more of the longest, thinnest parts of the tail are becoming available to consumers. That is great, and I love it, but I don’t expect any of these niches to start making a mint.

Which is good, because now we have to contend with free. I should clarify, however, that once again, this isn’t anything new. Nope, we’ve always had what seems to be free - radio, tv, mix tapes, just plain copied albums, VHS, free toaster at the bank, what have you. People always rush to point out these things weren’t ever really free. Again, duh. Yes, few people make the connection that when they pay for a Coke, a portion of their money underwrites the same advertisement that sold it to them in the first-place. Some people also undoubtedly didn’t realize that broadcast tv and radio weren’t ever free - there are enormous costs, underwritten by advertising so it only “seems free” to consumers. Same with all this internet stuff - the hosting, etc isn’t free, of course, so all you freevocates are wrong. Well, I don’t think anyone who thinks about this stuff ever made these wrong judgements, if ever a consumer did either.

There’s been a lot of writing on all this, but to me, what matters are really a few things -

To the consumer, these things are as good as free, and that’s how they like them;
Certain things that used to be expensive aren’t really anymore. The gig is up, and this means a lot of pain to a lot of people and industries, but tough luck. Them’s the breaks;
Just because something is free, doesn’t mean you can’t still sell it for a buck;
That same info that wants to be free, also wants to be very expensive. Just like Stewart Brand really said, folks;
Yes, some freevocates are wrong, and many businesses built on this will crumble. This neither means that free can’t be good for society nor that it can’t be good for some businesses - if they build a business model (a real one) around it;
Those who stand to gain the most from free want to kill it, or don’t understand it and will contribute to killing it, just because they’re afraid of change and unable to envision anything different than what they know;
It’s better to embrace free and build a plan that accounts for it than have none at all. You know, proactive vs reactive, just like they supposedly taught all these suits in business school;
As many others have pointed out, free can be a darn good marketing tool and it’s one that I think the film world should embrace, especially indies.

So, I gave this little lecture at the Power to the Pixel conference at the Edinburgh Film Festival. The slides are posted here, but the video of my speech is now live. Check it out below, as well as the roundtable that followed - you can find that and all the other Power to the Pixel videos here.

Enjoy.

Cross Media Film Contest

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:11:00 +0000

My friends at Power to the Pixel have launched their pitching contest for cross-media projects. From the website:

The Pixel Pitch is Power to the Pixel’s ground-breaking new pitching forum for up to ten of the best UK and international cross-media film projects.

We are looking for stories that can span film, TV, online, mobile and gaming to be presented to a select group of financiers, commissioners, tech companies, online portals and media companies in front of an audience of PTTP participants.

The selected project teams will compete for the
BABELGUM PIXEL PITCH PRIZE of £6,000.

A great opportunity for the right project.

IndieScreenings Tool

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:00:00 +0000

While in Edinburgh, I got the chance to speak with one of the main folks behind The Age of Stupid. This was pretty lucky for me, since I've been talking about their fundraising model in some of my presentations and wanted to learn more about how things are going. Great, it seems.

In case you don't know the story, check out the link above, but the short version is that they have used the web and social networking to raise a lot of money for both the production and distribution of their film. They are now showing the film across the UK and Ireland, and will soon be expanding internationally. In order to facilitate screenings, the've built a pretty cool online tool for booking screenings. It allows you to book the film for anywhere from 1 to thousands of viewers in multiple types of settings. Right now, it's only screening in the UK and Ireland, so to experiment with the process, just pretend you are booking it somewhere there. I imagine they'll expand this to other cities as the film rolls out.

I think it's a great start for a tool to help book events - not just films could use this, but also other cultural orgs, letting the audience tell them where to book the screening or event. Taking a lot of work off the shoulders of the producers/distributors as well. It's something Four Eyed Monsters did as well, and I hope to see more tools like this.

My new gig

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:36:00 +0000

As many of you might have seen in IndieWire yesterday, I've decided to move on to new things. In the spirit of open communication that is the web now, I'm posting the info I sent my friends and colleagues on Friday announcing my departure.

After five years leading NVR on the path to becoming Renew Media and then joining forces with the Tribeca Film Institute (TFI), I have decided to leave the organization. I am thrilled we could combine these two great organizations into one Institute with impressive, innovative programs in support of filmmakers, youth and their audiences. I am particularly proud of the launch of the Reframe project last year. I feel that the organization and these projects are now in a place where I can leave them in the hands of my extremely capable colleagues here at Tribeca, where they can continue to flourish.

As many of you know, I have quite an entrepreneurial spirit and want to now explore other opportunities. I will be launching a consulting business focusing on business development projects in the entertainment and cultural industries as well as helping filmmakers, artists and organizations to distribute content and connect with audiences through innovative uses of new technology.

Hopefully, you'll hear more hear soon.

Edinburgh and new models for filmmakers

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:13:00 +0000

Just back from the wonderful Edinburgh Film Festival, where I was participating on some panels for Power to the Pixel. Video will be up soon and I'll try to add it in. I had a great time, and the panels were a mix of old and new world folks discussing how to deal with the transformations of digital. I spoke about how filmmakers can continue to make money for their creativity in a world where things are trending towards free - not just free through piracy, but also where returns from ad supported sites are too little to live on, and where even the traditional models seem broken. Here's the slides, but a quick note - I tend to free-form deliver these, so the notes aren't everything that I talked about. Once the video is up, all will be revealed.

Filmmakers making a living with Free

View more documents from Brian Newman.

I also spoke about our Reframe project as a new business model that is actually working well for our partners. I focused more on how it is helping consumers by being a trusted source to find quality content. The slides are below. While there I also spoke on a Shooting People panel, but there's no slides from that presentation, which was kinda a mix of how Reframe works, and what new models exist for indie filmmakers in the digital landscape. Here's the Reframe slides:

Reframe Overview For EFF

View more documents from Brian Newman.

Open Video Conference Speech

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:40:00 +0000

I'm speaking at the Open Video Conference tomorrow, and then immediately boarding a plane for Edinburgh to speak (3 times) at the Power to the Pixel event at the film festival and at a Shooting People event. Then I take some much needed vacation in the Highlands. So, I am posting for all (4) of you lucky web readers, my open video presentation the day before. Wow, look out! it's short, they call it a "lighting talk" ... and it is at 5 minutes.

It's very simplistic, almost like a beginner's powerpoint. It's a style I borrowed from Jenny Toomey of the Ford Foundation, because I was about to present without any slides, but decided a few simple ones could help the flow. Nothing fancy needed here. I'm going to be pretty much ad-libbing about what I see as failures of the open video movement - mainly a lack of attention to the bigger picture, of which open video is just a tiny part. As well as a complete lack of real business models, and an unhealthy disrespect of the "dinoasurs" of old media, who are quite ready to beat the open folks into submission. Don't get me wrong, I'm on the open side, with a dose of realism against the utopianism, but when I looked at the schedule, it seemed like a bit of a love fest in need of a reality check. Here it is, and the Edinburgh ones soon:

Open Video Conference Present.

View more OpenOffice presentations from Brian Newman.

Youth views on the recession

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:03:00 +0000

I was going to stay un-wired for the whole weekend, but I have to give a quick shout out to the young folks from the TFI Youth program who had a stellar showing this morning on CBS Sunday Morning. The segment was focused on looking at the recession through the eyes of youth, and the ones they chose had all been part of our program (as well as a few other youth media orgs). Five NYC youth made short films about their experiences in the recession. They're all great, and the CBS segment focused on their experiences making the films and living through this recession. Congrats to TFI Youth Director Lisa Lucas and her team who helped them for the past two weeks in making their videos! We'll have them up on our website soon, but for now you can check out the report below:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Thoughts on the death of newspapers

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:08:00 +0000

Yesterday, I attended a great panel/workshop at Philanthropy New York, an organization of foundations and other philanthropists, on the future of the newspaper. It was titled "Internet to Newspapers - Drop Dead" but that was just the lead, teasing you in for a good discussion. The panelists were a pretty smart bunch -

Steve Coll, President of New America Foundation, and a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine
Nicholas Lemann, Dean and Henry R. Luce Professor, Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University
Victor Pickard, Senior Research Fellow, Free Press
Vincent Stehle, Program Director, Surdna Foundation (moderator)

Although I hope they don't represent the future of newspaper's diversity as a bunch of white men (sorry, but this is an ongoing problem on these panels), I do think they had good thoughts on the future. Two of them are well respected journalists, one a leader of a big journalism school, one a leading researcher on the field, one whose organization cares greatly about the future of democracy and one who helps support all of this as a funder and advocate. The audience was a great mix (and relatively diverse) - with journalists, heads of major foundations, heads of newspapers and community leaders, so the discussion was pretty good.

Essentially, everyone seems to agree that good journalism is important to our civil society and to democracy and that it needs to exist. No one seemed to really care if that takes the form of an actual newspaper, or some new type of news organization although it seemed many in the room still like print, they're pretty much over it if need be. There's also pretty general agreement that the model of newspapers is failed. I don't think I have to summarize any of these arguments, as that's all pretty self-explanatory.

What no one can agree upon is a solution, or whether the current solutions being proposed are worth much. The most comprehensive look at possible solutions just came out last week as a report from the group FreePress and is available here as a PDF. I think it's worth a read, because many of the struggles of news organizations are the same as those faced in film. One newspaper owner in the room said that while all media is suffering, the death knell at newspapers is palpable, to which I responded that these fears are just as palpable in the film world, we just don't get to write our own news about it.

While I am greatly simplifying the possible strategies, they seem to boil down to these (mainly from the report, but some from in the room):

1. Allow new ownership structures - this would mainly allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations and/or low-profit L3C alternatives. No one was saying that every paper should be a nonprofit, but rather that in all other media we have a mixture of both, commercial and non, for profit and non and the tax code needs to allow for this conversion in newspapers. There are some good models already, my favorite being the newspaper I grew up with, the St Petersburg Times owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute. This would allow newspapers to get certain tax breaks, receive donations and foundation grants, etc. Many people seem to favor this model, but I am not so sure (see below). Senator Benjamin Cardin has introduced a bill that would allow this, so it's getting some traction.

2. Have the government subsidize newspapers. The government would give tax breaks and direct monetary support to the sector. This would recognize their value to our government. While this has big problems - how free would such a press be to report on said government, etc - it's being heavily promoted now and is being seriously considered. It's worth noting that government support isn't actually new - the press has been subsidized in the past, and continues to be - free airwave spectrum to broadcasters, reduced postage for mailings, etc.

3. Give incentives for divesture - this essentially means that you'd encourage local ownership, diverse ownership, and other new structures through structured bankruptcies of dying media. They may actually consider it, because the owner's shares are becoming worthless;

4. Put up a pay wall - The ongoing call for this is ridiculous, but so often repeated that I must address it here. The idea is that you'll pay a subscription or micro-payment for newspaper content. While many are skeptical this will work at all (and the Free Press report addresses these arguments well), it will definitely only work if every newspaper/print/online news org does it at the same time. This means they'll need antitrust exemptions. The newspaper owner in the room felt that nearly every paper could be saved "if only people were charged and would pay a fair price." Yep, that's exactly the dilemma... and thus far nothing has worked.

5. Fund journalism training - Train journalists better with more funding, whether they are writing for a big media company or a little blog;

6. Create an R&D fund for journalistic innovation -this idea is one I like. Essentially, government and foundations, etc would invest in experiments in new models. One major, very major, journalis funder in the room confided that he's tried to get traditional big media companies to experiment, with their underwriting, and none would do it, they're just too resistant to change. But such a fund would allow for more experimentation, and lord knows we need some new models, so this idea is great;

7. Fund new public media - transform public broadcasting by greater investment, so you ensure a robust journalistic environment. No one thought public media was doing a good job, but all thought there was a chance for some improvement.

I was not so sure any of these answers will work. My frank assessment, which I shared with the group is that if these are the best ideas we can come up with for journalism, then perhaps we should let them all fail and just invest in the new folks coming up with supportable models. As someone who runs a nonprofit, I can say that the nonprofit model is seriously broken - I continually preach that what we need more of is for-profit/nonprofit collaboration and thinking, mixing the best of both models. So sure, let's explore some hybrids, and thus the Cardin bill is a good first step, but to think that becoming nonprofit will solve your woes is wrong. If your underlying business model - using news as a way to sell cars - isn't working, then you will just as surely fail as a nonprofit as a for profit. Nonprofits also must make money, they just don't give it back to shareholders. And in case you haven't noticed, foundations are struggling so don't count on them for a bailout. On top of that, there's plenty of bad management in nonprofits, so that won't solve your management problems. Nonprofits must also raise lots of earned income - many now bring in more than 50% through sales - of tickets, tshirts, cookies, etc. So, newspapers will still need to earn a profit from some form of sales (although perhaps ancillary items, not news).

I also don't think going to the government will work so well right now. If we think of the government as the representative of the people, then you've got a lot of funders/public who think that journalism failed them recently in the lead-up to Iraq, and the lead up to the financial crisis, etc. There may be good journalism and journalists out there, but try telling that to a general public that usually rates journalists as just barely above Dick Cheney in the admiration and trust columns. Seriously, passing this by the American public won't be easy. Not to mention all those freedom of the press worries, etc. So, we should try some government subsidies, but only if they support really innovative strategies, not the status quo.

This public support will also lead to a very real question - if good journalism is so important to our democracy, important enough for the taxppayer to help foot the bill through taxes, tax breaks, etc then why do you want me to pay for it twice by then paying a micropayment or subscription? Not that I will, or that anyone likely will, but there goes that business strategy. But this is the real kicker of the whole debate - payment. Real news gathering (not the opinion pages, and the like) is expensive to produce and someone has to pay for it. The industry keeps saying the public must pay, but sorry folks, as much as we want micropayments and subscriptions to work, they just don't.

Advertising has fallen, and it may not even work very well, but this is capitalism babe, and it ain't disappearing altogether. And while people may not pay for your content the same way as before, at the same levels, they will pay for very valuable content. What's becoming increasingly clear is that journalism can survive, and even a new version of a newspaper, perhaps a news organization that uses multiple delivery mechanisms, but it may not make enough to keep a small monarchy system in place. I know that in my field, film, I could easily spend very little money and hire some of the best film writers out there and within months put the leading industry publications out of business just by being more nimble, having low overhead and by being willing to experiment more. I don't have time for that, but someone will soon. The "big media" in film, Variety and Hollywood Reporter, just can't get it right, and have bloated costs from their legacy models. If you can do this in one industry, I'm sure you could do the same for international news. Yes, you'd face the eyeball problem - getting the eyeballs that a New York Times has, but look at how quickly eyeballs have accumulated on many a start-up from YouTube to Twitter. You don't need a printing press, don't need a fancy new building, don't need a subscription team bugging me every day, don't need a network of delivery drivers who miss my delivery half the time, don't need a lot of things. I'm being very simplistic, but you get my drift.

The problems facing newspapers are not unlike those facing film and other content media. We all know the digital problems and possible solutions. But they're also similar in another way - both suffer from some incredibly bad management and inability to change. Many of the problems facing newspapers have nothing to do with digital, they are legacy problems - things like focusing on gossip instead of hard news, declining readership as people have more options, media consolidation that favored less quality work, the fact that haf of advertising doesn't work, and we're learning through better metrics what half that is, etc. Frankly, however, there's been a lot of inertia because in most towns things settled into a system where one paper ruled the day, and if you owned a printing press you could essentially print money. Lots of it. You had no reason to change, no reason to think about the future. No reason to invest in the future. And if you were making money hand over fist on soft news, who cares about the "public good" of good journalism. Now that the economy has, in the words of Warren Buffet, taken the tide out and shown us who is wearing clothes and who isn't, many a bad business model is being exposed.

I obvously don't have all the answers, and I don't expect them to have all the answers either, but this is their industry and someone in it should be able to come up with a business plan that's better than trying to put the genie in the bottle and start charging micropayments for their content. They've tried it before and failed. So if we're going to think of giving newspapers a foundation or government lifeline,then we need new thinkers with better models. I read the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in print every morning before I start work and I care about good journalism and its importance to civil society, but I don't think we should suffer fools for long. While there are many great employees at many newspapers, there's an awful lot of bad thinking at the top (and I know there are exceptions). So that's why I think the smarter investment in our future is in the start-ups and the more nimble, usually smaller, press around the country. I don't expect all the big media to implode, and don't want some of them to go away, but I do think that the most profound changes will likely be too hard for the big guys to stomach - to embrace those changes, they'll need to undercut their existing model even more. I do think that the crisis is serious enough to warrant some intervention, but like the recent bailout, any such intervention should come with some serious strings attached that ensure that what media survives isn't just more of the same old schlock, but more of the journalism we need.

These aren't my final thoughts on the subject, just my initial ones from yesterday's conversation. Got any good ideas on what should be done? Leave some comments.

Photo Credit - Thomas Hawk

CwF + RtB=$$$ + $500 = dinner at sizzler

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:18:00 +0000

My last tweet on Mike Masnick's presentation got a lot of retweet's and he reached out to say there's an even better version online now. If you haven't watched the earlier one I linked, watch this, and if you have, watch the last ten minutes where he talks about how Trent Reznor's way of building a fan base and making money can work for "smaller" artists.

For those of you wondering WTF?? CwF +RtB = $$$ is a simple equation saying Connect with Fans and add a Reason to Buy and you can make money online with music, film, etc. Pretty simple, and I could elaborate, but well, there's this video you could watch instead. My favorite RtB - Josh Freese's offer to buy you dinner at Sizzler if you give him $500 towards his album!

Leadership Music Digital Summit 2009 - Mike Masnick keynote address, 3/25/09 from Leadership Music Digital Summit on Vimeo.

Pirate Bay and Filmmakers

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:43:00 +0000

How would/do you feel about your film being pirated?

Those are the results just in from Shooting People, who just recently released their poll about what filmmakers think about piracy and the Pirate Bay verdict. I have a lot of opinions about this which I may write about later, but everyone should read this. This is the exact kind of research more film organizations should be doing. I met with their great team while all were in town (one is a sublettor, so that was easy) and we agreed to work together with others to do this more in the future. Kudos to Shooting People for being such a great service org.

Here's the poll, and here's the text of their press release (which I can't find online):

For immediate release. Friday 24 April 2009

* Shooting People reacts to jailing of 'download pirates'

* Independent filmaker networking community speaks out about the future of free downloads

* Results of poll of members announced

In response to the news of the jailing in Sweden of four men behind Pirate Bay, the world's most high-profile file sharing website, Shooting People polled its members - thousands of them holders of intellectual property in their films - for their reaction.

The poll found the members of the 35,000-plus strong network of independent filmmakers divided.

The majority of Shooting People members did not welcome the Pirate Bay verdict.

48% disagreed with the court's decision, and 62% thought the jail term was too severe. 26% thought it was a justified sentence and 12% thought the ruling was too lenient.

As a network for the independent film community, a perhaps unsurprising 35% said they would never download a copyrighted film without paying, whilst 17% would consider it if there was no easy way to pay. A fair proportion have also been on the other side of the fence, with 30% claiming they have had their film pirated. For those that hadn't, 21% said they would be bloody furious if it happened to them, but 35% said they would be happy for the extra distribution.

For the last week, the debate has raged in Shooting People's nine Daily Bulletins: "it's been like discussing politics over Christmas lunch", observed Shooting People co-founder Jess Search, who has strong opinions on the issue.

"God did not give us copyright - society chose it as a progressive way to organise things at a particular time in our industrial development (1710 in Britain). Yet people talk about 'rights' as if they are inalienable human rights. Surely it's an issue of pragmatism? If the digital economy makes copyright almost impossible to defend - except by throwing increasingly large amounts of state intervention at the problem, it's probably time to concede that new business models are needed to fund creativity. Once your fans are also your enemy, you know there must be another way to configure the equation." (Jess Search, in the UK Filmmaker Bulletin).

"Piracy is theft. Whatever way you look at it, it is stealing. Now I don't think the big companies are losing as much as they claim, because in reality more than half the people who download something for free would not download something if they had to pay for it. All artists are entitled to a fair return for their work and the people who want to enjoy their creativity without paying for it don't deserve the pleasure creative people give to them". (Shooter Ron Aberdeen, in the Screenwriters' Bulletin).

"Pay artists so they can continue to make your life better than the crappy round of bills and mortgages it will be without it. We are not the dregs of society and we are not pursuers of pointless whimsy. We contribute to the soul of existence and if you think that's not worth a token fee - then throw away every album you have bought, break every film you've purchased and burn every book on your shelf. If you don't think the creative forces and imaginations behind these works deserve a little kick-back - then you don't deserve to own them". (Lee Kern, filmmaker and editor of the UK Filmmaker Daily Bulletin).

"A fan base represents value - either because they'll buy your products / services or because brands will pay to get access to your particular demographic. Pirate sites don't generate much revenue and they don't provide viewer data. But they can be useful as a shop window and lead generator to send your audience into places where you can ask for their email and offer them something to buy. It's all about the audience ...". (Caroline Bottomley, in the UK Filmmaker Bulletin).

"As someone who has had a film extensively pirated, I can't tell you how galling and unpleasant it is to see this pirating happen and be powerless to stop it. Life is tough enough for indy film-makers anyway. In future we will hopefully all be selling our work online and therefore this judgement and sentence is an unequivocal victory for us. These are criminals who happily ripped off film-making talent. Throw away the key, I say!" (Stuart Urban, in the UK Filmmaker Bulletin).

The myriad issues raised were discussed at length in Shooting People's blog, edited by filmmaker and writer Ben Blaine: http://shootingpeople.org/bensblog.

The question posed and full results are here:

Do you welcome the pirate bay verdict??

No (48%)
Yes (34%)
Neither (18%)

Do you think the judgement is correct in law?

No (31%)
Yes (45%)
Don't know (24%)

Is the sentence proportionate?

No, too severe (62%)
Yes (26%)
No, too lenient (12%)

Would you ever download a pirated film?

No, never I think it's wrong (35%)
Maybe, if there was no easy way to pay (17%)
Maybe, if the price was unfairly high (15%)
Maybe, if I knew the filmmaker was already rich (9%)
Never, I wouldn't want to get caught (2%)
Definitely, because I don't have a problem with it (22%)

Has your work ever been pirated as far as you know?

No (70%)
Yes (30%)

How did you feel about being pirated?

Happy to be getting extra distribution (35%)
Bloody furious (21%)
Not particularly happy (19%);
Resigned (19%)
Don't know (6%)

Will the pirate bay verdict reduce piracy?

No (70%)
Don't know (18%)
Yes (12%)

Notes to Editors

Shooting People is the international networking organisation dedicated to the support and promotion of independent filmmaking.
The organisation's 35,000 Members share tips, recommendations and news, and cast and crew their films using the nine Daily Bulletins. Members can upload their work for video streaming. Over 300 films are cast and crewed every week using Shooting People.
Shooting People maintains the Independent Film Calendar, hosts interviews, podcasts and free filmmaking resources, and Members-only special offers. Shooting People publishes books, DVDs and distributes independent film releases, DVD collections of award-winning short films 'Best vs. Best'.
Patrons of Shooting People include Mike Figgis, Morgan Spurlock, Richard E Grant, Sally Potter, Danny Boyle, Stephen Woolley, Christine Vachon, Nick Park, Martha Fiennes and Stuart Beattie.

Wreck & Salvage, New media panel

noreply@blogger.com (BNewmanSBoard) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:20:00 +0000

Last night, we had a great panel at the Apple Store for our TFI Youth program. I was able to come by for the latter half of the event, and have to say - it was the best panel of the entire Festival. I tweeted about it like crazy because the panelists were saying the most brilliant stuff. I wrote about the panel line-up earlier this week, but really encourage everyone to check out the websites for the panelists:
Wreck and Salvage
Jessica Ann Peavy
Zabet Patterson (this one's just a bio)
Jay Smooth
Kenneth Hung

After the panel, my good friend Kent Bye sent me a note on Facebook pointing out this great video from the Wreck & Salvage guys that excellently condenses/summarizes all of Good Morning America in less than 6 minutes. Hilarious, definitely worth a look.

Good Morning from wreckandsalvage on Vimeo.