6 ms·

Buy This Movie Or Legally Download It For Free: Your Call

58 points by tilt 15y ago

sp332 15y ago
Creativity is universal. Just because you're making something "mediocre", or the same thing as everyone else, doesn't mean that it's not worth making. Maybe I would agree that mediocre stuff is getting too much coverage. If we could limit the stuff we make to just friends and family, instead of making it public to everyone, then we could all make mediocre stuff without flooding strangers with mediocre crap :) ETA: I think the tradeoffs are worth it though. It's much easier to identify talent now that the barriers to entry are so low. You don't have to judge them by some proxy like whether they have decent equipment, or if they're friends with someone famous. Example: Hannah Hart made a stupid drunk video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7G-Q9ZwC0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7G-Q9ZwC0 but people realized that she was pretty funny and had good editing skills. So they encouraged her to make more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLYxeJjxc8s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLYxeJjxc8s and she got the attention of internet celebrities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLsTc_kETY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLsTc_kETY and she got to do a music video with a musician she likes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIvOqHfia2s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIvOqHfia2s and that wouldn't have happened if that first stupid drunk video wasn't available to the entire internet.
bennesvig 15y ago
Watched it last week. It's really good, especially Seth Godin's story of publishing the Ideavirus.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Creativity has increased because of the Internet. There's nothing to prove that "creativity will be destroyed". If anything we'll get more original and innovative ideas, instead of the boxed ones that are made from a template to make $300 million.
Tycho 15y ago
Maybe I see things in simple terms. But I think of artists as people who use their creative talent to entertain others (by exciting/relaxing/engaging/uplifting/etc them) in exchange for payment. And I see all these non-artists 'excited' about the 'potential' to 'express' and 'communicate ideas to the whole world' without the 'shackles' of commercial enterprise as basically being people, who care more about the spare change in their pocket than they do about artists, masquerading as new millennium hippies.
- blhack 15y ago
  I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that artists [or people] creating art for non-commercial purposes aren't really artists? That seems a little silly to me
  - Tycho 15y ago
    No, but let's just say that it's like anything else, eg. being a programmer. Doing art for a living isn't some transcendent activity compared to making your living doing any other sort of job. If you're good, people will pay you; if you do it for free, people will take it. If you're bad, people wont pay you any attention (or money).
    - r0s 15y ago
      Ah, the myth of meritocracy. Not in the art world, where tastes are subjective in extreme. Life ain't fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
    - blhack 15y ago
      <sarcasm> Nobody ever created anything good without being paid for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux </sarcasm>
      - Tycho 15y ago
        That was nowhere in my statement.
paul9290 15y ago
This interview with prior RIAA head, Hilary Rosen is very insightful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VBrDFxA9Q&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VBrDFxA9Q&feature=playe... As she notes the RIAA wasn't the only bad guy in bringing Napster down. Napster's VCs wanted too much money from an industry at the time that couldn't match CD sales. It's a business and thus the RIAA focused on the best money channel! A lot of readers here probably hated and or still hate the RIAA because they are viewed as laggards(even though those same ppl can't get enough of their content). This interview shows some in the music industry were laggards, some were not, while showing it wasn't just the industry who killed Napster, but the greed of Napster's VCs too. Changing a 100 year old business model won't happen overnight and even after 12 years it is still taking shape. My guess is the industry will see crazy Netflix like growth once Spotify, Pandora and other subscription services are built into cars; users use voice recognition to start playlists or songs. How many subscribed to satellite radio or still do? Spotify on every IP device, even in my car is worth paying $10 a month for!
- r0s 15y ago
  > even though those same ppl can't get enough of their content The RIAA produces zero content, they buy and sell content as a commodity. They add nothing to the industry of music creation but parasitic impediment.
  - paul9290 15y ago
    Well if you feel that way do not consume any of their content. Let them die! Though say, you enjoy this new artist who is an awesome talent and who wants to make a living making music; have their music heard all over the world by millions. The best way to do this now is still the music industry. The industry acts a filter, a promoter and investor of talent (their the YCombinator for musicians). It's been 12 years since Napster and the industry is still successfully doing this, yet making less money as of now. Subjectively these music subscription services are the key to growing their revenue beyond present day. I mean why would the guy behind Napster and Facebook (Sean Parker) be an investor and promoter of Spotify if he didn't feel this way? Further, I think just like Netflix once Spotify is built in to every IP device including cars, the industry will be financially stronger then ever.
blendergasket 15y ago
I really wish people who did this would put donate buttons on their sites. I would rather all (or most when taking the processing fees into account) of the money would go to them and not Apple or Amazon.
- marquis 15y ago
  Yes, I also spent a minute on the site looking for the donate button. Very happy to give them the same amount as I'd pay in iTunes but directly. I'm going to watch the film this weekend and if I enjoy I'll contact them directly, maybe they don't realise how many of us are happy to 'donate'. I find this a lot with indie movies where it's impossible to find a paid copy but a torrent exists. On the other side of things (and where I hope more producers look to) I've been enjoying this (sci-fi) TV series and paying as I go: http://vodo.net/pioneerone http://vodo.net/pioneerone
- Joakal 15y ago
  If you put a donation button but not a charity, american, etc, Google Checkout will freeze your account. http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer=72721 http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer... Or they could try PayPal instead...
  - 2q3241 15y ago
    So non american individuals cannot take any form of donations? That's strange.
  - blendergasket 15y ago
    Thanks for the head's up. That's sort of bizarre/interesting/frustrating.
powertower 15y ago
http://www.youtube.com/user/PressPausePlay http://www.youtube.com/user/PressPausePlay Their channel has a bunch of interviews that I'm assuming is the contents of the movie.
- joelhaus 15y ago
  These are the only ones I've listened to so far, but they were both good... Larry Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRABcFKOXtU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRABcFKOXtU Kirby Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eOm8ggE6_8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eOm8ggE6_8
intellection 15y ago
Acceptive language-seeking behavior. Encouraging headline adtext.
drcube 15y ago
Sites like Hacker News comb the net and bring interesting web sites and articles to my attention, in a world where everyone can be a writer. And in a world where everyone can be an artist, musician or movie maker, there will be ways to filter out the good stuff from the bad. "Getting lost in a sea of mediocrity" is entirely avoidable.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  That's true in theory but the number of people like PG who can setup such a valuable resource and not care about whether it costs them money are few. Most people who create outlets for art online or elsewhere have bills to pay and money becomes a factor. It is a very risky and low-profit business bringing obscure art to the masses. What is more likely is what happened with Myspace - it was a new, innovative way for any musician to create a presence for themselves online, where millions of people were also spending time exploring. But they chose not to limit it to only high quality artists and eventually the people who spent more time "friending" others than they did actually making a quality product achieved more through the platform. Creating something that works differently when this is the natural flow of such platforms is very challenging.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  We already have examples, too. Colbie Caillat, I believe, started her rise to success via MySpace, which god knows is filled with mediocre music.
aufreak3 15y ago
Saw this film in singapore recently. I don't think it'll tell you anything you don't already know. If it had come out like even 10 years ago, then you might've called it prescient or atleast credit it with identifying a trend. Not today though. Waste neither bandwidth nor money on it. (just my opinion)

58 points by tilt 15y ago

sp332 15y ago

Creativity is universal. Just because you're making something "mediocre", or the same thing as everyone else, doesn't mean that it's not worth making. Maybe I would agree that mediocre stuff is getting too much coverage. If we could limit the stuff we make to just friends and family, instead of making it public to everyone, then we could all make mediocre stuff without flooding strangers with mediocre crap :) ETA: I think the tradeoffs are worth it though. It's much easier to identify talent now that the barriers to entry are so low. You don't have to judge them by some proxy like whether they have decent equipment, or if they're friends with someone famous. Example: Hannah Hart made a stupid drunk video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7G-Q9ZwC0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7G-Q9ZwC0 but people realized that she was pretty funny and had good editing skills. So they encouraged her to make more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLYxeJjxc8s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLYxeJjxc8s and she got the attention of internet celebrities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLsTc_kETY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLsTc_kETY and she got to do a music video with a musician she likes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIvOqHfia2s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIvOqHfia2s and that wouldn't have happened if that first stupid drunk video wasn't available to the entire internet.

bennesvig 15y ago

Watched it last week. It's really good, especially Seth Godin's story of publishing the Ideavirus.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Creativity has increased because of the Internet. There's nothing to prove that "creativity will be destroyed". If anything we'll get more original and innovative ideas, instead of the boxed ones that are made from a template to make $300 million.

Tycho 15y ago

Maybe I see things in simple terms. But I think of artists as people who use their creative talent to entertain others (by exciting/relaxing/engaging/uplifting/etc them) in exchange for payment. And I see all these non-artists 'excited' about the 'potential' to 'express' and 'communicate ideas to the whole world' without the 'shackles' of commercial enterprise as basically being people, who care more about the spare change in their pocket than they do about artists, masquerading as new millennium hippies.

blhack 15y ago
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that artists [or people] creating art for non-commercial purposes aren't really artists? That seems a little silly to me
- Tycho 15y ago
  No, but let's just say that it's like anything else, eg. being a programmer. Doing art for a living isn't some transcendent activity compared to making your living doing any other sort of job. If you're good, people will pay you; if you do it for free, people will take it. If you're bad, people wont pay you any attention (or money).
  - r0s 15y ago
    Ah, the myth of meritocracy. Not in the art world, where tastes are subjective in extreme. Life ain't fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
  - blhack 15y ago
    <sarcasm> Nobody ever created anything good without being paid for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux </sarcasm>
    - Tycho 15y ago
      That was nowhere in my statement.

paul9290 15y ago

This interview with prior RIAA head, Hilary Rosen is very insightful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VBrDFxA9Q&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VBrDFxA9Q&feature=playe... As she notes the RIAA wasn't the only bad guy in bringing Napster down. Napster's VCs wanted too much money from an industry at the time that couldn't match CD sales. It's a business and thus the RIAA focused on the best money channel! A lot of readers here probably hated and or still hate the RIAA because they are viewed as laggards(even though those same ppl can't get enough of their content). This interview shows some in the music industry were laggards, some were not, while showing it wasn't just the industry who killed Napster, but the greed of Napster's VCs too. Changing a 100 year old business model won't happen overnight and even after 12 years it is still taking shape. My guess is the industry will see crazy Netflix like growth once Spotify, Pandora and other subscription services are built into cars; users use voice recognition to start playlists or songs. How many subscribed to satellite radio or still do? Spotify on every IP device, even in my car is worth paying $10 a month for!

r0s 15y ago
> even though those same ppl can't get enough of their content The RIAA produces zero content, they buy and sell content as a commodity. They add nothing to the industry of music creation but parasitic impediment.
- paul9290 15y ago
  Well if you feel that way do not consume any of their content. Let them die! Though say, you enjoy this new artist who is an awesome talent and who wants to make a living making music; have their music heard all over the world by millions. The best way to do this now is still the music industry. The industry acts a filter, a promoter and investor of talent (their the YCombinator for musicians). It's been 12 years since Napster and the industry is still successfully doing this, yet making less money as of now. Subjectively these music subscription services are the key to growing their revenue beyond present day. I mean why would the guy behind Napster and Facebook (Sean Parker) be an investor and promoter of Spotify if he didn't feel this way? Further, I think just like Netflix once Spotify is built in to every IP device including cars, the industry will be financially stronger then ever.

blendergasket 15y ago

I really wish people who did this would put donate buttons on their sites. I would rather all (or most when taking the processing fees into account) of the money would go to them and not Apple or Amazon.

marquis 15y ago
Yes, I also spent a minute on the site looking for the donate button. Very happy to give them the same amount as I'd pay in iTunes but directly. I'm going to watch the film this weekend and if I enjoy I'll contact them directly, maybe they don't realise how many of us are happy to 'donate'. I find this a lot with indie movies where it's impossible to find a paid copy but a torrent exists. On the other side of things (and where I hope more producers look to) I've been enjoying this (sci-fi) TV series and paying as I go: http://vodo.net/pioneerone http://vodo.net/pioneerone
Joakal 15y ago
If you put a donation button but not a charity, american, etc, Google Checkout will freeze your account. http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer=72721 http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer... Or they could try PayPal instead...
- 2q3241 15y ago
  So non american individuals cannot take any form of donations? That's strange.
- blendergasket 15y ago
  Thanks for the head's up. That's sort of bizarre/interesting/frustrating.

powertower 15y ago

http://www.youtube.com/user/PressPausePlay http://www.youtube.com/user/PressPausePlay Their channel has a bunch of interviews that I'm assuming is the contents of the movie.

joelhaus 15y ago
These are the only ones I've listened to so far, but they were both good... Larry Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRABcFKOXtU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRABcFKOXtU Kirby Dick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eOm8ggE6_8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eOm8ggE6_8

intellection 15y ago

Acceptive language-seeking behavior. Encouraging headline adtext.

drcube 15y ago

Sites like Hacker News comb the net and bring interesting web sites and articles to my attention, in a world where everyone can be a writer. And in a world where everyone can be an artist, musician or movie maker, there will be ways to filter out the good stuff from the bad. "Getting lost in a sea of mediocrity" is entirely avoidable.

earbitscom 15y ago
That's true in theory but the number of people like PG who can setup such a valuable resource and not care about whether it costs them money are few. Most people who create outlets for art online or elsewhere have bills to pay and money becomes a factor. It is a very risky and low-profit business bringing obscure art to the masses. What is more likely is what happened with Myspace - it was a new, innovative way for any musician to create a presence for themselves online, where millions of people were also spending time exploring. But they chose not to limit it to only high quality artists and eventually the people who spent more time "friending" others than they did actually making a quality product achieved more through the platform. Creating something that works differently when this is the natural flow of such platforms is very challenging.
sliverstorm 15y ago
We already have examples, too. Colbie Caillat, I believe, started her rise to success via MySpace, which god knows is filled with mediocre music.

aufreak3 15y ago

Saw this film in singapore recently. I don't think it'll tell you anything you don't already know. If it had come out like even 10 years ago, then you might've called it prescient or atleast credit it with identifying a trend. Not today though. Waste neither bandwidth nor money on it. (just my opinion)