Michael Moore asked his opinion on downloading his movies

[Greeby]

Run time: 01:41 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlAB0v8wHdc   Posted on YouTube: October 20, 2006 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 16, 2007 By DU Member: Greeby Views on DU: 2636

 
JUst to clear things up :hi:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thanks for posting this

I was thinking this was how he felt about the matter-sharing and not profiting from another person's labor is ok.

[elocs]

2. Downloading movies? Hell, with dialup I have enough trouble downloading YouTube clips. n/t

[ananda]

3. What any guy with heart would say!

I have dialup too.. so I'll see it at the theatre.

Moore should be supported that way anyway.

Sue

[IndyOp]

4. I was tempted to download the movie yesterday, but held off...

I guess I think sharing after the movie has hit the Theaters and had a good first round is different from sharing before hand...

:shrug:

I appreciate his common sense attitude about sharing -- so long as no one else makes a profit on his labor it is okay. I do still feel for the "little" artists who need for their work to be purchased instead of downloaded so they have enough money to eat and pay the rent.

[whistle]

5. Where did you find a copy of Moore's latest movie? It has not even

...been released in theaters yet has it?

[LSK]

7. Drudge had posted a link to one yesterday

An advanced copy got leaked somewhere. Theres even rumors that Moore himself did the leaking.

[IndyOp]

8. I will answer you via PM...

[caledesi]

9. thepiratebay.org - It is there! NT

[Nomad559]

25. It was leaked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x288338

:)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. I found it yesterday too. now that I've heard this, I'm gonna go ahead and burn it.

I can't afford to go see it, or buy it when it comes out anyway. :shrug:

[Deja Q]

6. I wanna know what he thinks of hosting his own movies on his own website for download...

That would solidify, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, how he truly feels.

I think my response is not an unfair nor a 'freeperish' one.

[Bjorn Against]

10. I don't think his studio would allow that

I am sure they hate it when he talks about downloading movies to begin with but they put up with it because they still make a ton of money off him. If he were to post the films on his own website however I don't think he could ever find a major distributor for his films again.

[Downtown Hound]

15. He can't do that

Moore may be the director and writer but the studio owns the movie. They could sue him if he put it up on his website, and if he profited on it in any way they could even put him in jail. He could pretty much kiss his film making career goodbye. Although Moore would likely have enough of his own money to make a documentary, the real problem would be finding the funds to distribute it.

Making a documentary costs some bucks, but anyone could pretty much do it these days with a computer editing system and a good camera. The problem is distributing it. Making enough copies to go around to all the theaters can cost millions. And then there's advertising and promotion. More millions. And legal hassles that require lawyers. Pain in the ass. It's really better for everyone involved to just let the studio handle it and let the message get out to as many people as possible.

[Solon]

26. That would cost a hell of a lot more than a torrent...

The network load alone may increase the bills a LOT. There's a reason why torrents are becoming popular, not just for pirated movies, but for any large file. They offload the costs of hosting the file to thousands of people and servers instead of just one, hence spreading the cost, and reducing that cost for everybody.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. That is exactly what I had expected him to say..The more people who see it, the better.

I wonder how many repukes are going to download it and watch it out of spite, and get the rudest awakening of their lives!!!!

[Lorien]

19. That's what I hope will happen

I'd rather see it in a theater myself, but I'm betting that most repugs will do just as you describe...and maybe they'll end up impressed enough that they'll want to see his other films!

[I Have A Dream]

12. Wow! I love him even more after this. His message is the important thing to him -- not the money.

:thumbsup:

[Downtown Hound]

13. I still plan on seeing this movie at least twice in theater

Even though I will likely download it at some point. Downloading movies on the internet has never been all it's cracked up to be for me. The quality usually sucks, and you don't get the same atmosphere you do in a theater. I still like that feeling of going to the theater, sharing in the experience with others. I'll never forget when I saw Fahrenheit 911 in the theater. It was like Michael Moore channeled a whole outpouring of rage and grief from the audience and gave us all a voice. One man called out during the middle of the movie that he was a vet when Moore was taking the marine around to members of Congress to try and get their kids to enlist and go to Iraq. At the end of the movie, people stood up and cheered. There were many chants of, "Fuck Bush!" It was hands down the most incredible movie going experience I've ever witnessed. And you'd never get that from watching it on a computer screen.

The movies that I really want to see I still go to the theater for, and I really think most others do as well. Downloading is for the movies that I probably wouldn't go pay to see anyways. If just 10 million people in the United States go to the theater to see Sicko, then it will make anywhere from $70-$90 million domestic box office. It will make more internationally. And then it will make even more in DVD and television sales. That's a shitload of money for a documentary to make. Moore will make millions, the studio will make millions. Everybody will be happy.

I personally think I'm being very conservative with the 10 million estimate. I think this movie is going to absolutely huge.

[Steepler0t]

14. So lets hear what you think

Thread from yesterday with a few people who have seen it already

I recommend the Sicko.DVDSCR.XviD-CANALSTREET version, the one that drudge linked is lower quality. (low quality link from drudge -whats new?)

Awesome movie, going to show my roommates it tonight. (and see it on the big screen when it opens in here)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. for those who don't do bit-torrent...

It's on the Newsgroups in DVX format.

[silverweb]

18. Exactly what I thought he'd say.

I vaguely remember a similar question coming up some time ago about one of his other movies, and he exhibited more or less the same attitude.

Besides, I suspect a majority of people would rather watch it with others in a comfortable theater or on a TV screen bigger than what computers have.

The people downloading the movie for free are most likely either going to be the opposition, who will get a much-needed education, or those who just don't have the ability or extra cash to get to a theater/video store -- and that's a very good thing.

Michael Moore is a great humanitarian and this is all about waking people up to the truth.

Thank you, Michael!

:loveya:

[Cleita]

20. Bravo Michael!

I will probably see it on line because I can't wait but I will also go to the movie and buy the DVD.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

21. Let's look at the whole deal for a moment:

1. Moore puts a copy of the film in "storage" in Canada.

2. Story goes that the film is pirated from there, where they do not have the DMCA to contend with, or the MPAA.

3. Film is released on a Swedish website.

Question: Did Moore have a hand in this, to disseminate the message to places and people who would not normally see it?

I know what my gut is telling me.

[Kazak]

22. I just downloaded it, plan to watch it tonight...

But, I'll still see it in the theater as my show of support. Similar to music downloads, I download lots of music now-a-days, but I always try to buy the albums I like the most. My favorite music artist, Luke Vibert, has begun putting this harmless statement on his recent releases, "Support the music you love by purchasing a new, original edition!", and that's exactly what I do.

[johnnyrocket]

30. Absolutely, I've seen it, but I'll buy a ticket or something...

when it comes out. Moore needs support, to change things. That's what it's all about.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. In fact, he says he's happy that people do it. As long as no one is doing it for profit, it's fine

according to him. And you know what, more people, who would not go to see his films in the theater, become exposed to them. Boy, do I love Mike!!!!

[Garbo 2004]

24. Moore's view is not shared by the studio that co-produced and has legal distribution rights

for "Sicko."

The video clip you posted is not recent and he was not specifically speaking in reference to "Sicko." And IIRC I don't think his past films were pirated before their theatrical release.

Just to clear things up, Moore's past statements still don't make "Sicko" a legal download. Just in case anyone is thinking that it does.

[Occulus]

27. It's hilarious the way copyright apologists scream and yell about the artists

And there's "the artist", in his own words, even, sayinh how he doesn't care... and now suddenly "it's the stuuuudio and distriiibutor".

Feel free to read those words in as whiny a voice as possible.

(Can you tell I have general contempt for "modern" copyright laws and their application in the digital era?)

[Garbo 2004]

28. "Copyright apologists?" I don't support the draconian use of copyright laws which is

what Moore was referring to. But I also don't scoff at copyright entirely either. Neither does Moore: he still reserves the right to profit from his own work; he just doesn't favor draconian measures to enforce his rights.

Regardless of one's views, however, Moore's saying he doesn't care still doesn't make the film a legal upload/download. That's just a fact.

But it perhaps also should be noted that the studio/distributors in this case aren't exactly "bad guys" just because they want people to pay to see the film. The Weinstein brothers' company is the coproducer of Sicko, they're Moore's partners. The Weinstein brothers (when they were with Miramax under Disney) made Fahrenheit 911, bought the rights back from Disney since it wouldn't distribute the film & Lions Gate got distribution rights. These companies got Fahrenheit in the theaters. Moore isn't funding these films entirely out of his own pocket. Moore chooses to work with a studio and take other people's money to make, market and distribute his work. There are obvious benefits to that, including that it gives his films wider play and prominence through marketing and distribution than they likely otherwise would have if he had been just working entirely independently. The Weinstein brothers have supported Moore and helped provide a platform with funding, marketing, distribution and yes, they all profit as a result. Lions Gate is the distributor for Sicko's US theatrical release.

Realistically Sicko, which reportedly had a production budget of around $9 million, likely will make at least enough money to give a decent return after production, marketing and distribution costs. Moore knows that. He himself may be cool about filesharing (his example was someone buying a DVD and sharing it IIRC) but he also knows in this case his business partners and theater owners can't be thrilled about it, especially since Sicko is out in circulation before the film is even in the theaters. Weinstein Company is putting a positive spin on it, saying it's indicative of interest in the film and the issue of health care, etc. But of course they want people to pay to see the film. And why wouldn't they?

Many people here for example who are able will pay to see the film in theaters or buy DVDs even if they've seen it for free because they know providing box office and sales are a means of supporting such films and encouraging companies and theaters to step up for documentaries that might otherwise not get financing and distribution. Paying customers help show there's an audience for such films and a financial return for those who provide them. Free downloads simply don't do that.

Remember "9/11: Press for Truth?" A fine documentary that a couple DUers were involved in. They didn't have a name studio with big bucks behind them. As Larisa Alexandrovna posted here, they were hoping for a viewership and to make enough money to at least pay their bills and return their investors' money, some of them crew members IIRC. They didn't have a multimillion dollar marketing campaign or distribution agreements that put their film in thousands of theaters in various countries. Just getting the word that the film existed and getting it seen was the challenge. That and getting their bills paid.

Or how about Robert Greenwald's films?

Yes the films are available online for free, but tossing a bit of coinage their way helps support their work. Which I've done and will continue to do. Even for Moore's films, whether he cares or not.

[johnnyrocket]

29. I saw Sicko yesterday, very good movie....

highly recommend seeing it.

[Bread and Circus]

31. I really appreciate MM's view on this, but I'm going to buy the film

because I want to make sure him and his colleagues are rewarded for this kind of work.