

Boycotting Hollywood - aaronmoodie
http://aaronmoodie.com/blog/2012/01/23/boycotting-hollywood.html

======
zecho
SOPA/PIPA shouldn't be the only reason, as noted in a throwaway line by the
OP.

Here's why I haven't been to a movie in well over a year:

...Four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic
book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel
to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a
remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a
children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with
a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it
were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.

[http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-
day...](http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-
movies-died-mark-harris#ixzz1kFPpQmsF)

SOPA/PIPA just sent me from being indifferent about moviemakers to actively
opposing them. And it goes deeper than just boycotting. I intend to donate
money to campaigns of politicians who were always against these bills and to
the EFF, the ACLU and other watchdogs that did a good job bringing it to our
attention.

~~~
res0nat0r
Here is a list of the 50 best films of 2011:
[http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/12/the-50-best...](http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2011/12/the-50-best-
movies-of-2011.html)

Here are Roger Ebert's 20 best films of 2011:
[http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_20...](http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_2011.html)

Here is the AV Clubs 15 best films of 2011:
<http://www.avclub.com/articles/best-films-of-2011,66423/>

Saying that 'all Hollywood is shit and should be destroyed' based on mass
market crap is as purposefully naive as saying that the entire music industry
is only producing the content you hear on Top 40 Radio.

~~~
david927
Your response, though, proves the point. You made a list of independent films!
While some of the weaker candidates came from Hollywood, the vast majority of
the films you listed came from independent studios -- who are not trying to
destroy the internet.

Hollywood (the major studios) is not film just as the major labels are not
music. They represent a period of less than 100 years where vast amounts of
money could be made off of art by middle men who market it. That period is
over but they don't want to give up "their right" to that money. Who would?
But instead of going peacefully, they will do a "scorched earth" all the way
down, making _everybody_ pay for the fact that the times have changed and no
one needs them anymore.

~~~
res0nat0r
This is a bit silly to say 'Hollywood' is trying to destroy the internet, yet
somehow these independents are 100% separate from all that is evil and it is
that black and white.

Note most of these films are from small studios, but the majority of these are
distributed by Sony Pictures Classics or Fox Searchlight, etc, which if evil
'Hollywood' didn't get involved most of these pics wouldn't be able to be seen
at your local town cinema, let alone maybe even get the money to be produced.

So to say that Transformers 3 is Hollywood because it sucks, yet The
Descendants is isolated on it's own non-evil island away from Hollywood is a
bit silly.

~~~
bitcracker
> This is a bit silly to say 'Hollywood' is trying to destroy the internet

No, unfortunately it is not "a bit silly". The content industry MUST finally
get control over the Internet to survive. I am convinced they use SOPA etc.
not to fight piracy at first but to ultimally destroy Youtube (Google) and
other competitive independent video platforms which will surely make the whole
movie industry obsolete in the future.

Why? Because even NOW private people have become high quality movie producers.
The first movies with Star Wars quality have already been made by private
enthusiasts. Look at:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Revelations>

This movie is really competitive to the Star Wars series and was made 2005 -
seven years ago! It is obvious that coming professional movie producers don't
need middle men in the future at all.

I am not against the content industry but their attempt to use SOPA et.al. to
do collateral damage by establishing a global censorship infrastructure which
would ultimately destroy our precious fundamental human right of free speech
cannot be tolerated at all.

------
smoody
This will be an unpopular opinion, but in addition to boycotting Hollywood,
why not also make it your mission to talk to each of your friends who
illegally watch copyrighted films (according to US laws) about the cost of
their actions? If the goal is to get hollywood to stop pushing completely
absurd and not well thought-out laws through our system of government, then it
seems to me that reducing piracy (through education) makes sense as part of a
larger strategy.

Of course it is my experience that people who pirate content won't listen, but
at least I try. To people who pirate, it's sort of like a single vote in an
election... what does it matter if one person does or doesn't do it?

And FYI, I don't work for Hollywood, but my wife is an independent filmmaker
(award winning in several major film festivals) and she invested her hard-
earned money to complete her film -- as did her producers and their parents,
etc.

When people steal her movie instead of watching it on iTunes or Netflix for a
minuscule charge (and many people do indeed watch it illegally), then it's not
any different than taking money (even if it's pennies per person) out of our
pockets. Plus, her value as a director cannot be accurately measured because
industry analytics don't include pirated content, and that makes it harder to
prove her worth when she tries to line-up investors for her next film.

~~~
electic
Please stop getting hung up on the fact that your wife's movies are pirated.
The fact of the matter is that your wife, more than ever, has access to such a
large global scale audience that was never available in the past with the
traditional movie studio system. Mind you, legal indie video distribution
networks with millions of users.

You are basically focusing on the fact that there is a small minority of
internet users who are downloading your wife's movie illegally. You are so
fixated with pirating that that you are not completely focusing on efforts to
make your wife's movie available to new mediums in the U.S. and around the
world.

In fact you are so one sided you fail to explore the possibility that viral
distribution might help you. Some indie directors are in fact trying to get
their movie to spread via BitTorrent and other mediums to drive sales and gain
more awareness. Wihtout the internet where would Trey Parker and Matt Stone
be?

Either way, saying someone is pirating your movie as an excuse to burn down
the internet is short sighted.

~~~
res0nat0r
I don't think he is saying at all to burn down the internet, just that each
person who would have watched his wife's film by paying for it, but didn't
since a free copy was available instead online hurts their financial situation
and also her 'popularity' since these views are never able to be tallied.

~~~
electic
That is what I am saying. On the net, people will download the copy for free
but it is a small minority. Make ipods, there will be knockoffs. Make hand
bags, there will be knockoffs. Make cars, yes cars, there will be knockoffs.
It is part of business. Make a unique site and get funded by VCs, there will
be copycats funded by other VCs. Welcome to the world of business. But
largely, if the movie is good there are soo many LEGAL distribution points.
Focus your energy on those.

As much as I hate piracy, it really might have the opposite effect for indie
artists. It might make her more popular since indie artists DO NOT have
massive marketing budgets.

------
earbitscom
This article (and most of these Kill Hollywood ones) is just ridiculous.
"Hollywood" (what does that even mean?) does not _want_ to break the internet.
They do not _want_ to stifle free speech. They are not "mean".

 _They want to stop people from taking things that cost them a lot of money to
make without paying for them._

It's that simple. They want people to either abstain from using their product
(not ideal) or pay them for the use of it. This is what every business on the
planet wants.

Instead, they invest billions of dollars making things that are in massive
demand. They employ millions of people whose livelihoods depend on these
products getting a return. They have a moral and legal obligation to protect
the interests of their investors and their employees. Although 10 million
illegal downloads is not 10 million legal sales lost, it is, without a doubt,
_some_ sales lost, and there are many billions of illegal downloads annually.
These companies have moral and legal obligations to push for better
enforcement against this illegal activity. And they do not have the answer to
how to go about that effectively without causing problems in the process. It
does not make them malicious people by default. Everyone on this forum knows
that there is no perfect solution, and maybe it is a pointless pursuit, but it
is just silly to act as if this massive industry, lead by people who feel
every bit as responsible for their employees' families having food on their
table as any other company's leaders, is supposed to just sit there and watch
people illegally take their product without paying for it and do nothing.

Yes, we all want to make sure legislation like SOPA does not pass. But
declaring a war on them is not going to help find amicable solutions. Saying
you do not like their proposed solutions and then going back to business as
usual, not proactively joining the conversation for how to reduce piracy, is
not doing anything at all to keep the internet safe from the flawed solutions
that they will continue to propose out of obligation to their shareholders and
employees.

If you really want to protect the internet, the two best things you can do are
stop pirating things you didn't pay for, and start contributing ideas and
solutions to the issue of piracy that have as few unintended consequences as
possible.

~~~
greggman
First off, we agree the creators should be paid for their work.

But I think you're missing the point. You believe the problem that needs to be
solved is stopping piracy by enforcement.

Others, pg, myself included, believe piracy is not actually the problem it's a
symptom.

The problem is convenience.

The studios either because they are stuck in the past or because they are
contractually obligated to theaters, cable, TV, DVD stores, and foreign
distributors, are not making it convenient.

There's no reason the studios individually or better yet, collectively,
couldn't make all the content they represent available, on the same day it
premieres, online, WORLD WIDE, for a reasonable price. There's also no reason
they couldn't run world wide commercial sponsored channels of older content,
online, world wide. If they did those they'd make billions.

Instead they are stuck in the past. Theaters first = incentive to pirate. Not
released in my country yet = incentive to pirate. Can't play on any device I
own = incentive to pirate. Can't transfer from device to device = incentive to
pirate. Shitty quality streaming = incentive to pirate.

The solution is to REMOVE THE INCENTIVES TO PIRATE.

I understand the theaters would be upset. I understand the cable companies
would be upset. I understand their foreign distributors would be upset. I
understand DVD stores would be upset. TOO EFFING BAD! The world has changed.
The studios need to face the world as it is now, not try to legislate it back
into the 90s. That's not going to happen. As hard as they might try technology
and the world move forward not back. They need to swallow that pill and
embrace reality. Make it convenient and most people will stop pirating.

~~~
earbitscom
Actually, I believe that piracy needs to be stopped by education, enforcement,
and innovation.

> _There's no reason the studios individually or better yet, collectively,
> couldn't make all the content they represent available, on the same day it
> premieres, online, WORLD WIDE, for a reasonable price._

I understand how you could come to this conclusion but that's just false. Two
years ago I started a streaming music company knowing pretty much nothing
about licensing laws. Now, after working with one of the best music licensing
attorneys available and reading an annoying amount on this subject, it is
clear that if you intentionally set out to create an industry that was
impossible to maneuver legally, you could not do as good a job as the current
music industry. And, I know it's the same for the film industry, which is
further complicated by the fact that nearly all films also have music in them.

Both of these industries are filled with extensive legal requirements, many of
them labor laws, union regulations, licensing restrictions and more, designed
to make sure that artists and other people are not exploited. For every movie
you make, not only do certain players in the movie have certain rights,
certain royalties owed, and so forth, but then there is music in it. That
music has a copyright owner, a publisher, and so on. They all have different
rights, and many have assigned those rights to others for management, and this
information is not easily located all of the time.

There is no cookie cutter way to license everything you need for these films
in one stroke of a pen world wide. In some countries, even the publishing
rights owners themselves cannot waive or change the mandatory rates to be paid
for the use of their work. And, as a company putting out a world wide film,
you have to know all of these laws for all of these countries. And then to do
what you've proposed you have to make the movie available in every weird new
format that comes out every other week, you have to forego release schedules
that actually allow you to build buzz and execute a marketing plan that
maximizes the ROI for your investment, and so forth.

So, there are about a million reasons why what you described is impossible.
And then, at the end there is that one last incentive to pirate that will
never be gotten rid of - charging money, which they cannot avoid.

All things being equal, you don't think these people want to make their
product more convenient to have? I know a ton of people in the industry who
try to put their content anywhere they possible can. At the end of the day, it
doesn't matter how hard they try, it's never going to compete with free, and
these people deserve to be paid for their work.

~~~
tux1968
Thanks for taking the time to present some information not often heard in
these debates.

But in my opinion the big content distributors should be fighting to change
the agreements and laws that shackle them -- not crippling the internet to
accommodate them.

Louis C.K. has already made the case for us. You do not need to change
_anything_ to get people to pay a reasonable amount for quality content. They
will pay even when they can get it for free. He has already made a few million
charging $5 for a non-DRM, easily pirated copy of his comedy special.

It shows the way forward: make it convenient, make it good value for money...
and we will come.

~~~
earbitscom
Louis CK only barely innovated on what many artists already do. The reason he
was successful and they are usually not is because he already has millions of
fans and has friends on television talk shows who brought him on to promote
the product. He also painted a picture that this was the new way to distribute
content, which "pandered" (not meant to imply something negative) to the
community who wants to prove that there is a way to make money by doing things
differently. I personally paid for the product as a result, and still have yet
to get around to watching it.

Many thousands of great bands are on Bandcamp with name your own price music
for sale that is super easy to download, and most make next to nothing on the
service. It was mostly the marketing that Louis CK did well that made him
successful, and he has resources that 99% of people don't have.

To address the point of distributors changing the laws that shackle them, if
you've ever tried to make changes against a union, let alone half a dozen
unions, you'll know why that's not possible. They can make almost no headway
against unions as powerful as the Screen Actor's Guild, and they cannot hire A
List actors without using SAG workers.

In fact, maybe the best approach to killing the problems with Hollywood (not
the industry itself), is to create a platform for studios to hire non-union
film professionals, to source music fully owned by the original artist, which
comes with boiler plate licensing and employment agreements that are designed
for the digital world, with proper 21st century royalties, etc, and that
provides a turnkey distribution platform that can put your movie on nearly any
country's most popular movie viewing website on the same day.

------
locopati
When capitalism is dominant and the bottom-line is money, this is the logical
first line of reponse. If you don't agree with a company's actions, withdraw
financial support. If enough people do it, it can make a difference. In this
world, there are many means of entertainment, especially with the internet.
Movies can be replaced; it may be a sacrifice, it may be something else, but
it won't be supporting groups whose actions endanger the great endeavor that
is the internet.

------
ianstormtaylor
This service could be very helpful then: <http://www.fandor.com/>

They let you subscribe to vouched-for indie films.

~~~
aaronmoodie
Thanks, I'll check this out.

------
daimyoyo
I've also boycotted hollywood but SOPA / PIPA wasn't the reason why. I refuse
to patronize hollywood because the DOJ is reaching across international
borders to prosecute a young man who had the audacity to run a website
containing links that the MPAA didn't like. I cannot in good conscience
support an industry that is so hell bent on restricting the progress of
technology simply because their outdated business model no longer works. And I
used to see 8-10 movies a month so I hope the studios are happy with their
decisions. Because I'm happy with mine.

------
brianstorms
My response to the "Kill Hollywood" and "Boycott Hollywood" rants: Kill Y
Combinator. <http://blog.moviegoer.com/post/16333492475/kill-y-combinator>

------
chaostheory
I wonder if buying used movies (used DVDs / Bluray) would let us have our cake
and eat it too? From the little I know, only the retailer or the individual
re-selling them makes a profit, and not the studios.

------
backprojection
What about donating $1.5 to the EFF for every $1 you spend on movies/music?

~~~
finnw
Sounds great. Do they take Amazon gift vouchers?

------
monsur
What about consuming Hollywood movies through legal, online means such as
Amazon.com video? You'd still get to watch the movies while giving a vote to
legal online streaming.

~~~
molmalo
The point is to affect their quarter balance.

Consuming their products either way, is just the same. The money ends up in
their hands.

But for a boycott to be effective, you need to create awareness to generate
real-world actions. Otherwise, only the tech-savvy ones will do something, and
the boycott won't reach the scale needed.

Anyway, I don't believe that a boycott is a good alternative. That would hurt
mostly to the weakest links of the chain; employees who work for little money,
and the big companies won't hesitate to fire, if they feel the need to keep
their numbers fine, just to don't make their shareholders angry.

Let's remember that we are in the middle of a nice tech-bubble here, most of
us making some good money, but the rest of the economy is in really bad shape.
I don't think this is a good time to push them to swell the ranks of the
unemployed.

I'm having sort of a dilemma here... I have to meditate it a bit longer.

~~~
nate_meurer
This argument reminds me of the way logging companies defend clear-cutting
old-growth forests by simply saying that loggers need jobs. If your main
concern is simply to preserve jobs, then it's never a good time to start a
boycott.

If your main concern is defense of liberty, if I may be so bold, then now is
most definitely an appropriate time to start a boycott.

------
SoftwareMaven
My daughter just pointed me at Black March[1]. I'm ready to give my attention
and dollars to people who aren't trying to take away my liberties.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3499120>

------
DamnYuppie
I am surprised that this was not put forth by more people as a way to protest
actions of the MPAA. This is not only reasonable but something more people
should be doing as well. Personally I have been boycotting movies since
November.

~~~
alan_cx
Opiate of the masses. Not easy to give up. Media consumers are little better
than junkies. They hate themselves, but do it anyway. If they cant afford it
because their money now has to go else where in a society which spends its
time monetising things that used to be free, or sorry, "added value" they
pirate.

And this is one reason I reckon piracy is popular and less money is going to
media producers. Our money has different places to go now, compared to before.
Some things like fuel have massively increased in cost. One simple example is
the internet its self. We have to pay for a connection, which means 2 less
CD's per month. More of our money goes on things like video games. Fuel, gas,
and electricity in the UK for example have almost double in the last 5 years
or so. Dunno the total cost there, but its is in the £1000's. So if the media
people what to know where their income has gone, a big chunk of it is with the
energy producers. The money has simply shifted elsewhere. Maybe if fuel costs
went back to 2002 levels, money money might get spent on movies, etc.

But, we still want our opium. The opium they fed us in the first place.

I think artists and media companies have to accept that the gravy train has
derailed and they have to make less millions than before when they had it
good. And frankly, these people have been obscenely over paid for decades.
Isn't $5m OK any more? Does it have to still be the historic $10m?

------
__abc
18 dollars a ticket? Where is he paying that? I just saw a flick in San
Francisco and it didn't cost that much. Is this a NYC thing?

------
draggnar
Maybe we should start picketing outside of movie theaters also?

