Boycott SmartFlix!

[Greggl]

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.

Yes, and I'm the one that mentioned that earlier in this thread.

And starting a very short time ago, a 'rental business' only needed a few individual copies of a title to supply the entire US via online rentals and distirbution center
mailing. Thats the current state of affairs.

I dont really care to get emotional about the issue. I'm seeing a working model
for an average $15000 production that would normally recoup with sales at $20+
per unit via traditional sales distribution. What sort of increase in audience is
expected via rental to offset the reduced sales?

 

[TwistedLincoln]

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.

I'm not giving commentary on the laws themselves -- I'll leave that to the lawyers. I'm simply making note of the attitudes that many in society have today regarding these issues.

I know different rules apply. But I'm making a broad point that covers my feelings on both Trademark and Copyright law.

Trademark law provides protection for consumers and vendors-- it lets those buying goods be assured in the source and quality of the items. However now, Trademarks are being used in the same way Copyrights are -- to extend control beyond that of the conceptual work and onto a physical item. That's my complaint.

In this example, you suggest that Coca-Cola has more rights to that bottle than I do, despite the fact that I bought and paid for it, and now own it. Sure, they own the rights to the trademarked name. And the copyright to the logo. But I own the bottle. Everyone seems to forget that.

This move toward "intellectual property" as being more valuable than physical property should be disconcerting to everyone, especially those of us who produce creative works.

I'm sure at its face it seems like I'm overreacting, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if one day a lawyer from Panasonic comes to this forum and demands that we pay Panasonic royalties for using their cameras to create films. After all, millions of dollars in research and development went into creating the DVX and HVX. So it would only be fair to give Panasonic a cut of our profits, since we wouldn't be able to make the high-quality products we do without them... (note the sarcasm...)

 

[David Jimerson]

You can do whatever the hell you want with the bottle. You just can't do it with the Coca-Cola logo attached to it.

Or is there some reason you want to have the logo on it? The more the answer to that is "yes," the more Coca-Cola would have a case.

 

[David Jimerson]

I dont really care to get emotional about the issue. I'm seeing a working model
for an average $15000 production that would normally recoup with sales at $20+
per unit via traditional sales distribution. What sort of increase in audience is
expected via rental to offset the reduced sales?

Well, I would say that as long as the rental market exists, any return a content provider gets is better than the $0 they get when SmartFlix is the only game in town. If the size of the market is 100 people who are not going to buy, period, and will only rent, and they all rent from SF, then the content providers get nothing. If 80 rent from SF, and 20 from the new concern, then the content providers get something. Ideal, of course, would be 100 renting from the new company and SF going out of business, but still -- any return greater than zero is an improvement.

 

[Greggl]

Well, I would say that as long as the rental market exists

It didnt really exist until Smartflix. Now there is talk because of them, of a
'legit' system of sharing rental proceeds started by members of this community.

I'm still trying to gauge the impact of rental income vs sales income for
these titles... not income from this new rental thing vs 0 from smartflix.
If that 100 pool of renters you mentioned, all rent and none buy... you
just got what, $500 in rental profit sharing, vs how many that may
have bought @ $30 a pop?

How does the specialty video model survive ANY significant rental shift?

 

[Cryogenic Filmworks]

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.

Since Coke has been brought up.... (don't agree with their reasoning but it's an issue).
Coke halts Jesus pic

Also if you think about it, other than the 2 litre bottles, the coke bottles have a distinctive design. Therefore should you use a bottle other than the 2 litre to beat someone to death it could be construed as detrimental to coke (I am sure the bottle designs are trademarked).

Now back to the topic..

 

[David Jimerson]

It didnt really exist until Smartflix. Now there is talk because of them, of a
'legit' system of sharing rental proceeds started by members of this community.

Doesn't matter. It exists now and isn't going away, I wouldn't think.

I'm still trying to gauge the impact of rental income vs sales income for
these titles... not income from this new rental thing vs 0 from smartflix.
If that 100 pool of renters you mentioned, all rent and none buy... you
just got what, $500 in rental profit sharing, vs how many that may
have bought @ $30 a pop?

Like I said, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. The question is, how do you adapt to it?

 

[TwistedLincoln]

You can do whatever the hell you want with the bottle. You just can't do it with the Coca-Cola logo attached to it.

Or is there some reason you want to have the logo on it? The more the answer to that is "yes," the more Coca-Cola would have a case.

Actually, Coca-Cola has a trademark on the entire design of the bottle. So they could probably sue me even if I took off the label.

Regardless of the example, the point is that I'd like to think that property ownership still counts for something.

EDIT: Stupid idea withdrawn. Clearly illegal. Disregard.

 

[David Jimerson]

Since Coke has been brought up.... (don't agree with their reasoning but it's an issue).
Coke halts Jesus pic

Also if you think about it, other than the 2 litre bottles, the coke bottles have a distinctive design. Therefore should you use a bottle other than the 2 litre to beat someone to death it could be construed as detrimental to coke (I am sure the bottle designs are trademarked).

Now back to the topic..

Actually, there are copyright issues with the shape of the bottle, too.

 

[David Jimerson]

Oh, and a suggestion for all of those who have DVDs on SmartFlix that they don't want there-- why not just sign up for their service, rent your own DVD, and then tell them you lost it... You'd likely have to pay them to replace it, but if you then refused to sell them replacement copies, they'd be out of luck-- if they only bought a few copies from you to begin with, it would't take long to exaust their supply.

That would be illegal. And more slimy than what they did in the first place.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

That would be illegal. And more slimy than what they did in the first place.

I figured as much. But I thought I'd demonstrate that I'm not out to get everyone by at least suggesting something. :laugh:

EDIT: In retrospect, it was irresponsible of me to have suggested such a thing, even in jest. I've edited it out of my original post.

 

[Greggl]

The question is, how do you adapt to it?

Thats the question I've BEEN asking

The cat is out of the bag... how does niche video survive with this revenue
stream... especially if you're down to pennies a rental for a major 'flat
rate' subscription service that would also strike an ethical deal with
content owners.

The itunes model with 'That' as a model is interesting... Short subjects
at $1.99 with 40-50% back to the filmmaker could be viable... variable pricing
with DIY licensing would be even better.

 

[bbalser]

But you would also be losing sales if someone were to go around teaching people the same skills you show in your DV

Oh god you so totally are convoluting things! Would Larry Jordan's DVDs sell just because Apple has their own classes? Now your comparing apple to onions and really convoluting things that don't relate! Maybe you are SmartFlix's spy.

Here's MY question to everyone here:
Who thinks SmartFlix is ethical? Just say up front if you think they are ethical or not! Nothing else matters. Do YOU personally think they are ethical? That's why I started this! Do you or not? Answer up front and honest! It is a simple YES or NO answer. Anything out side of YES or NO is an excuse to not answer.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

Maybe you are SmartFlix's spy.

I'm sure this was said sarcasticly, since you know I've been on these forums long before this post. But for the sake of new readers: no, I'm not SmartFlix's spy...

Here's MY question to everyone here:
Who thinks SmartFlix is ethical? Just say up front if you think they are ethical or not! Nothing else matters. Do YOU personally think they are ethical? That's why I started this! Do you or not? Answer up front and honest! It is a simple YES or NO answer. Anything out side of YES or NO is an excuse to not answer.

Yes, they are acting ethically, in regards to their business practices. See my previous posts for the reasoning.

As for how they treat people who request that content be removed, I can't say, as I haven't dealt with them. If people approach them appropriately, they should treat them with respect, even if they decline the request to remove content.

 

[David Jimerson]

Thats the question I've BEEN asking

The cat is out of the bag... how does niche video survive with this revenue
stream... especially if you're down to pennies a rental for a major 'flat
rate' subscription service that would also strike an ethical deal with
content owners.

The itunes model with 'That' as a model is interesting... Short subjects
at $1.99 with 40-50% back to the filmmaker could be viable... variable pricing
with DIY licensing would be even better.

Maybe, but we've been talking about something very specific here. You're trying to adapt the conversation to a larger world, but the thread itself deals with a much narrower part of it.

 

[David Jimerson]

BTW, live presentations of material tend to increase appetite for the DVD tutorials.

 

[Greggl]

So if Netflix started carrying the bootcamp, we'll start a 'Boycott Netflix' thread
and thats the extent of it?

 

[David Jimerson]

Yes, they are acting ethically, in regards to their business practices. See my previous posts for the reasoning.

I don't think the touchstone for ethical behavior is self-defined.

 

[David Jimerson]

So if Netflix started carrying the bootcamp, we'll start a 'Boycott Netflix' thread
and thats the extent of it?

If Netflix carried the BootCamp DVD, they'd have approached us openly about it.

 

[bbalser]

Yes, they are acting ethically...

Oh my god you are so out of touch! Explain how telling an author to ef off, in this specific instance, even if you legally can, is ethical? I'd love to hear that explanation!