Boycott SmartFlix!

[David Jimerson]

Sure. But if I see a dirty old pig, and what I want at the end of the day is a nice juicy ham, does it matter if I use a knife, or a sledgehammer?

Maybe it's just a side effect of the years spent in the environment in which I have spent them, but bad attitude and dishonesty and flip-you-off-for-the-fun-of-it are just par for the course, and hardly worth getting worked-up-over. Ripping you off for the fruits of your actual labor, now that's a lynching offense.

There need not be -- and rarely ever is -- a single motivation or reason for anything.

Seems that way in this sound-bite world where reporters think it's a profound question to ask someone what their "ONE reason" for doing something is, but that's not how it actually works.

Any one reason cited probably isn't enough to get worked up -- it's the whole package.

 

[Rubix³]

I hear you both.

And to me, there's nothing wrong with well placed vengeance. I'm not concerned about being judged. Especially if it's eye for an eye.

Want to piss them off? I read their site so I'm assuming that returning stuff is just like netflix. Order something from them, and return it with their postage sticker on their box or a larger one. Fill the box with a bag of sand or something just as heavy.

I used to do this when I worked out of the house. I'd get those annoying "business reply" mails. I'd fill them with magnets I had laying around and mail them back. A nice little "f'k you too" right back at them. :thumbup: :beer:

 

[bbalser]

So you're saying you want to "take them down" and put them out of business not because they're costing you money, but because they didn't ask you nicely first? That's a bit extreme.

You totally miss the point, it's because they take money away from authors. That just happens to ALSO be something that makes people angry. I think you're trying to force us all into being vengful, when that doesn't exist at all. We want to protect ourselves, pure and simple.

I get that everyone here is angry that SmartFlix is essentially giving them the finger. If you are losing out on sales because of it, then find a way to compete -- maybe by renting the titles yourself, maybe by lowering your prices, or whatever. There are plenty of ways to beat them out through competition, as you have suggested.

Yes, and that is exactly why this thread was started, to get folks to ban together for a posstitive change that puts the hard diserved money and control back into the hands of the authors/copyright holders. So why do you focus on the anger and not what we're actually saying?

But if you launch an endeavor for the expressed purpose of making them suffer, then you are doing something far worse then they are -- at least they are just in in for the money -- you'd be in it for revenge...

Where did anyone say we were out for revenge? What post here says "I want revenge"? If you actually pay attention, we're wanting to put the profits and control back into the hands of the original authors/copyright holders who have a LOT of money tied up in their products. It just happens to be that having money taken from us, especially legally, tends to make you angry, ALSO! I really see a few folks trying to force the "revenge" thing, when none of us said that, and it's not what this is about.

I tend to suspect there will eventually be a SmartFlix spy here, trying to twist things like that. So let's not start making a big deal about something that is NOT going on here. THIS IS NOT ABOUT REVENGE, PERIOD! Get over it, and start using your pay-attention skills a little more!

 

[Sad Max]

There need not be -- and rarely ever is -- a single motivation or reason for anything.

Any one reason cited probably isn't enough to get worked up -- it's the whole package.

Sure, they've put together one heck of a package of motivations. And so long as they get their clocks cleaned, I don't personally care which one led someone to do it to them.

Although stealing money out of your pocket by ripping off your hard work, kind of stands out, at least, to me.

 

[David Jimerson]

Sure, they've put together one heck of a package of motivations. And so long as they get their clocks cleaned, I don't personally care which one led someone to do it to them.

'ZACTly. :beer:

 

[bbalser]

I hear you both.

And to me, there's nothing wrong with well placed vengeance. I'm not concerned about being judged. Especially if it's eye for an eye.

Want to piss them off? I read their site so I'm assuming that returning stuff is just like netflix. Order something from them, and return it with their postage sticker on their box or a larger one. Fill the box with a bag of sand or something just as heavy.

I used to do this when I worked out of the house. I'd get those annoying "business reply" mails. I'd fill them with magnets I had laying around and mail them back. A nice little "f'k you too" right back at them. :thumbup: :beer:

Revenge has no place in this discussion. If "you" want to go do that, and get hit with an obstruction of free trade law suit, go to it, and leave the rest of us out of it.

We're trying to help put hard earned profit and control back into the hands of the authors/copyright holders who have invested a LOT into these products. Products you have ALL purchased, used, and been greatful for the resource at one time or another.

No revenge! Go do that crap on your own!

 

[Sad Max]

'ZACTly. :beer:

Ah, consensus.

:beer:

 

[Rubix³]

Revenge has no place in this discussion. If "you" want to go do that, and get hit with an obstruction of free trade law suit, go to it, and leave the rest of us out of it.

We're trying to help put hard earned profit and control back into the hands of the authors/copyright holders who have invested a LOT into these products. Products you have ALL purchased, used, and been greatful for the resource at one time or another.

No revenge! Go do that crap on your own!

Relax buddy, please. Your gung ho "get behind me regardless" attitude is detracting from the validity of your plight. I was just being "playful."

 

[vidled]

I agree with Rubix also; to start this endevour will take a LOT of time, not necessarily money, but extremely a lot of time. The motivation HAS to be concentrated on making this a viable finacially successful endevour from the get-go.
The difficulty will be to offer the "service" <cough, cough> at a lower price than what SF is currently doing. They have very little (or better phrased: MUCH LESS) overheads as far as accounting, and administration is concerned.
Someone will have to make this their full-time job for sure, if this is to succeed.
If Steve could write software that automates the ordering process, and divies out the "royalties" automatically, that might help, but even so, this is an accounting nightmare.

Having said that, I think the basic idea is a good one, but it needs to be refined, and like David suggested other-than-HowTo videos need to be provided also.

 

[sean90291]

Interestingly, it's the same predicament that broadcasters are afraid of finding themselves in: content providers are skipping the middle-man and self-distributing. Broadcasters/distributors don't make content, they buy it and re-sell it (via advertising or pay-per-view). If the content creators self-distribute (rent, sell, broadcast via download, sell product placement and advertising), it makes the old distribution models very precarious. An interesting lecture on the topic is over on YouTube (it's not directly related to rental but certainly empowering to content creators).

 

[bbalser]

...and see what Travis Corcoran has to say himself.

To reinforce the point, I personally had an email exchange with Mr. Corcoran. He bascially told me he believes he's working within Christian ethics, and that he can't contact every author cause he doesn't have enough staff for that, that he doesn't care about contacting authors as he's not legally obligated to do that extra work, and he does NOT care what authors think, feel, or lose money over, cause what he does is legal and within Chirstian ethics.

Of the many, many, many authors who's work he is selling, there are only three he uses as references to happy authors who like thier work being there. Only three like him, is that what it means? I don't know...

He stated that the authors should have more thoroughly research copyright law BEFORE they ever produced a video. Bear in mind this is the same copyright law you all THINK you're own flims and work are covered under! It's not just how-to videos, it's EVERY video legally sold! It's the same exact law! I could legally buy up all the Indie films for sale on-line and start a rental service and ignore the authors. If I did that to your short film, I think you'd feel like you were ripped off, when you still have more copies to sell before you break even on the DVD production.

My personal interpretation of what he said was that any unhappy author can go screw themselves for all he cares

He sites old, historic, large Hollywood distribution legal cases to prove his rentals don't hurt us Indie authors, but he can not show one single case within his own business where this same conclution stands up. I bet he'll never even want to find out, becuase he said he doesn't care what authors think or feel, he said that out right. What a good Christian man he is!

Here's his own words, my question is, if you're sitting at a computer making an order, you can pick up a phone at the same time and call the number right there on the web site and ask permission, so where does no manpower or time figure in?

(a) we carry videos from more than 1,500 authors, and do not have the
time or manpower to contact every one.

(b) we do not need anyone's permission to use our own legally acquired
property.

To me this means:
(a) We dont' give a crap about anyone but ourselves.
(b) We REALLY don't give a crap about anyone but ourselvs.
How can it not?

I did ask him, and he refuses to answer directly, if you rent over 1500 author's titles, at $10 a pop, that's a lot of money you're making very quickly. How much have these same authors made in additional sales, if any, from SmartFlix? He claims they do, but has no data to back it up. And I'm not certain any author is making significant extra sales, if any at all, from SmartFlix.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

Yes, and that is exactly why this thread was started, to get folks to ban together for a posstitive change that puts the hard diserved money and control back into the hands of the authors/copyright holders. So why do you focus on the anger and not what we're actually saying?

I tend to suspect there will eventually be a SmartFlix spy here, trying to twist things like that. So let's not start making a big deal about something that is NOT going on here. THIS IS NOT ABOUT REVENGE, PERIOD! Get over it, and start using your pay-attention skills a little more!

I'm assuming you know that I'm not a spy, right?

I was focusing on the anger because no one wants to debate the point. Which is fine -- I'm not trying to attack anyone here, just express an opinion:

There is a difference between being angry because SmartFlix is costing you money (due to lost sales by people who'd rather rent), and being angry becasue you think you should get a cut of SmartFlix's profits.

I totally understand the frustration that comes from losing out on a sale to someone else. It happens to me all the time in my line of work.

But what I don't get is the attitude that SmartFlix is somehow:

... stealing money out of your pocket by ripping off your hard work...

How is SmartFlix ripping off your hard work?? They buy a DVD in a fully legal transaction. At no time during that transaction did you make it clear that you are only selling them a copy under the conditions that they do not rent it out. Then they rent it out, and you somehow think you should get a piece of their sales??

That's the question that no one has answered. What is the reasoning behind the assumption that just because you create something, you should be able to control it AFTER you've sold it? I don't dispute the long hard hours of work, or the money invested in the project.

I do get a bit offended by people telling me what I can and can't do with something I've purchased, despite the fact that such restrictions were never made known at the time of sale. It's one thing if I purchase something knowing what I'm getting into. It's quite a different story to get a suprise after I've paid.

I have no desire to start a DVD rental service, so I'm arguing this on priciple, not because I want to actually do it. I never want to see the day when I can't legally sell my old DVDs at a garage sale or loan them to a fiend because I'm somehow "taking money out of people's pockets" by causing somebody to lose a potential sale...

I have never advocated downloading illegal music, copying DVDs you didn't purchase, or using software you didn't pay for. I'm not arguing that everything should be free, and to hell with those who make content. But people who buy physical, real-world products should have physical, real-world rights.

 

[bbalser]

How is SmartFlix ripping off my hard work? By not sharing in the rental fee, and by allowing people to rent rather than buy. The 1-4 copies SmartFlix buys is a drop in the bucket of what I have to sell to make my money back. I lose on the rentals, as my sales could drop, and I'm plain not getting paid. He pays $50 for a tutorial video, he rents it out 20 times, he's made $50, more than three times what I made off the original sale. Will any of those renters consider purchasing if they can rent? And these are Duplications, easy to copy, not copyprotected DVDs from the big Hollywood guys.

There's no ethical reason to not include the author of a creative work in the rental of his creative work.

I do this cause I love to teach. But if teaching doesn't make me enough money, I can't teach. We're not talking about Hollywood production companies with tons of money to throw around. We're talking indie here, with folks who actually have to strain resources more to get these products out.

As for your old CDs at a garage sale, audio CDs, software, and movies are all proteced under DIFFERENT copyright laws.

If you sell a DVD at a garage sale, fine, you paid full price originally, the next guy gets it a little cheaper, end of story. But if you RENT it out, you're raking in a lot of cash very quickly, that the author is still struggling to cover out of his own pocket. Selling second had on eBay and RENTING are actually covered by two different aspect of copyright law.

The "reasoning" you speak if is that we're indie's, it costs a lot of money and time to produce creative products we really want to share. If we can't make our money back, we lose out. This legal loop hole SmartFlix is using is pretty insulting to us authors. Why should we continue to do something we're proud of, if all we'll do is get slapped in the face by SmartFlix, where it'll all be rented and not purchased?

Hollywood DVD sales do not fluctuate with rentals in a parrallel manner, as SmartFlix claims. Rentals have show increases at times when Sales have fallen off. That's the concern. Hollywood can take it, us indies can't.

Tony, me question is, why do you have a problem with us Indie Producers trying to keep some control over the distribution of our products in a manner that allows us to financially afford to continuing to make them, and more in the future, avaiable? Should we just all get out of the business? Should Total Training just stop and no one would care? Because that is the bare bones of this situation, pure and simple.

You rent from NetFlix, that studio gets a cut of that rental fee. You rent from SmartFlix and nobody outside of SmartFlix sees anything. But both operate under the exact same copyright law.

NetFlix-Big Hollywood Studios with money and lawyers galore!
SmartFlix-Indies who barely break even to produce creative work.
What about this is not clear to anyone?

 

[Greggl]

NetFlix-Big Hollywood Studios with money and lawyers galore!
SmartFlix-Indies who barely break even to produce creative work.
What about this is not clear to anyone?

Thats not really accurate. Netflix has some specialty videos in their catalog,
though most of them are sporting and fitness related. There is nothing stopping
netflix from renting 'how to' titles, well, nothing other than the fact that
very few producers would licence their titles to be rented. Its suicide in the
current model.

This is where tons of confusion is setting in, for me at least.

The emotional response is definately anti-smartflix, and its justified.
Im just questioning how many of you guys wold realistically want
your work in the rental market. Interested enough to want to know
how your model differs from the one I've worked under.

The safety and training series that I've got a stake in, sells for
a few hundred a title. I get a check once a year based on sales. The
titles are used by retailers to train new employees, so rentals aren't
that much of a threat but we could easily support an 'on demand'
online system. We produced the series in 1997.... inital production
paid off from sales by '99. Its sold steady since. Once again, I'm very
interested in how any of you guys could work within a rental model.

 

[David Jimerson]

There is nothing stopping
netflix from renting 'how to' titles, well, nothing other than the fact that
very few producers would licence their titles to be rented. Its suicide in the
current model.

I think you may have missed a beat.

If someone buys a copy of your work, it's not a matter of licensing. They can rent it whether you want them to or not.

 

[sean90291]

The big difference today is that the old copyright laws never envisioned technology which would allow for instant widespread distribution (search and click on the internet) AND also quick, high-quality copying/piracy. So the law that allows you to-resell that old vinyl record at a garage sale for less than you paid made sense up until recently. You owned the record, and paid for it, and you can sell it for less to somebody else, who is getting a "used" item. The artist potentially loses 1 sale in the deal. That's it. But most people bought records new for obvious reasons. Even taped copies were unwieldy and slow and lost generational quality.

Now, SmartFlix is exploiting this antiquated copyright law knowing full well that 99% of the people renting these items are copying them for their own use and each rental therefore takes away another potential purchase from the creators. Even our "old" VHS tapes from only 5 or 6 years ago didn't pose the same problem--the crap quality of copied VHS tapes kept people buying. You could really only get 2 generations out of a copied VHS before it was almost unwatchable. But easy, pristine copied DVDs means that each rental is almost certainly a lost sale to the content creator.

Another reason why the old copyright laws are troublesome in this case is that SmartFlix is dealing with product that never reaches masses distribution levels. So even though DVD movie rental companies like Blockbuster potentially take away a sale of Spiderman 2, they're buying so many copies across the nation that it obviously does boost the studios' pocketbooks. You just can't say the same thing for a tutorial video on Combustion.

One thing I noticed is that SmartFlix made me suddenly aware of all kinds of titles I didn't even know existed. I didn't even know about Barry Green's HVX DVD until I searched on SmartFlix. So it's sort of a shame there can't be some kind of win-win arrangement between a copmany like SmartFlix and the people making the content SmartFlix is exploiting.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

How is SmartFlix ripping off my hard work? By not sharing in the rental fee, and by allowing people to rent rather than buy. The 1-4 copies SmartFlix buys is a drop in the bucket of what I have to sell to make my money back. I lose on the rentals, as my sales could drop, and I'm plain not getting paid. He pays $50 for a tutorial video, he rents it out 20 times, he's made $50, more than three times what I made off the original sale. Will any of those renters consider purchasing if they can rent?

As I said, I get that you are losing sales because some people are renting instead of buying. But you would also be losing sales if someone were to go around teaching people the same skills you show in your DVDs. So if I answer someones question on this forum, and that same answer could have been found on your DVD, you might lose a sale. That certainly doesn't help your bottom line. But it doesn't mean I owe you anything, either.

There's no ethical reason to not include the author of a creative work in the rental of his creative work.

There's no ethical reason to expect it, either. Sure, cutting you in would certainly be better. But these guys are in business to make money, not to help anyone else. That's how business works...

If you sell a DVD at a garage sale, fine, you paid full price originally, the next guy gets it a little cheaper, end of story. But if you RENT it out, you're raking in a lot of cash very quickly, that the author is still struggling to cover out of his own pocket.

And if I create a DVD that's 10 times better than that other guy, and nobody buys his copies because mine are better and cheaper, I still make lots of cash, and he still struggles. But somehow that's not unethical... what's the difference?

The "reasoning" you speak if is that we're indie's, it costs a lot of money and time to produce creative products we really want to share. If we can't make our money back, we lose out. This legal loop hole SmartFlix is using is pretty insulting to us authors. Why should we continue to do something we're proud of, if all we'll do is get slapped in the face by SmartFlix, where it'll all be rented and not purchased?

I suppose if you weren't making any money doing it, I suppose there isn't a reason to continue. That would certainly be unfortunate, but another company's business practices aren't going to be based on what is good for you. It will be based on what is good for them. Does that justify SmartFlix's arrogant and rude attitude? No, the people here deserve more respect. But it does justify their business model.

Tony, me question is, why do you have a problem with us Indie Producers trying to keep some control over the distribution of our products in a manner that allows us to financially afford to continuing to make them, and more in the future, avaiable? Should we just all get out of the business? Should Total Training just stop and no one would care? Because that is the bare bones of this situation, pure and simple.

My problem isn't with "Indie Producers" specifically. My problem is with anyone who tries to keep control over the things I purchase after the sale. I have a much bigger problem with the Hollywood studios trying to tell me that I shouldn't be able to make a backup copy of a DVD I legally bought. I have a problem with iTunes using DRM to keep me from playing music I purchased on any computer I own. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I certainly sympathize with anyone who works hard to produce something, and struggles to compete with the big guys. But just as I criticize those that are super-successful for taking away my rights, I will do the same to the little guys who want to do the same to level the playingfield.

My bottom-line feeling: when you create something, you are entitled to be able to control how it is distributed, not used. Don't tell me not to use my new CD as a coaster because it insults the hard work you put into it. Don't tell me not to tell my friends the ending of your movie, because now they won't go see it. And don't try to say that I owe you anything after I paid for your product.

This attitude works both ways, remember. It's the same thing that makes anyone who films a documentary worried about a lawsuit because some guy things he's entitled to $30,000 just because his painting was in the background on a wall of a restaurant that was featured in your doc. It's the same logic that makes us all worried of getting sued for using products as props that have Trademarked names on them. I don't think I owe Coke a dime if I feature my character beating someone to death with a Coke bottle. Why? Because I bought that Coke bottle, and I should be able to do with it as I please.

If you really want to control your work forever, make that part of the sale. But don't be upset when people like myself then refuse to purchase it...

 

[Greggl]

I think you may have missed a beat.

If someone buys a copy of your work, it's not a matter of licensing. They can rent it whether you want them to or not.

Its first sale doctrine.. i get it... but netflix isn't currently in the adult or 'how to'
market. Does anyone have any information about Netflix refusing to remove
a title from their existing catalog when asked? I've got a few things there
where I have deferments, but any cash I've seen has been from the traditional distribution sales model.

With this proposed rental agency, you are talking about some sort of
licensing with rental revenue for the creator.

 

[David Jimerson]

Its first sale doctrine.. i get it... but netflix isn't currently in the adult or 'how to'
market. Does anyone have any information about Netflix refusing to remove
a title from their existing catalog when asked? I've got a few things there
where I have deferments, but any cash I've seen has been from the traditional distribution sales model.

With this proposed rental agency, you are talking about some sort of
licensing with rental revenue for the creator.

I'm not aware of anyone asking Netflix to remove a title in the first place, in order to refuse to do it. Netflix doesn't try to slip in and buy retail copies without letting on what they plan to do with it. When you sell to Netflix, you know who and what you're dealing with.

Contrary to what Corcoran says to try to justify his sorry lying self, here's an analysis of how rental businesses operate vis-a-vis movie distributors:

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mortimer/papers/04jmp401.pdf

Basically, prior to 1998, rental companies paid considerably more than retail for each copy of a movie, and then starting in 1998, they started moving to revenue-sharing arrangements.

 

[David Jimerson]

I don't think I owe Coke a dime if I feature my character beating someone to death with a Coke bottle. Why? Because I bought that Coke bottle, and I should be able to do with it as I please.

You didn't buy the trademark. You didn't license the trademark. You have no claim to ownership whatsoever over the trademark, period, and Coca-Cola does not relinquish control over it merely because it sold you a container which has the trademark on it.

It's not the same as buying a copy of a copyrighted work. It's not copyright law at all. Different rules apply.