Response to Rhett Reese

A few quick notes. The blockquotes are parts of Rhett Reese's statement on the flamewar caused by his tweets on piracy of Zombieland, the move he wrote, posted here. Outside the blockquotes are my reactions to the preceding part. "Art" generally refers to all creative works.

Hi all, since I'm the one who unwittingly started this particular firestorm, here are my thoughts.

You sure did. And quite a firestorm it was.

My two tweet plea (five if you include my three angry tweets to individuals) began after I read tweet upon tweet for hours, days, weeks, in which people mentioned (or often, bragged) openly about having just watched Zombieland at home for free. I largely shrugged this piracy off as inevitable, but it never felt good to read the tweets. Then I saw the 60 Minutes episode on piracy. And then I read an article about the sheer numbers of downloads of Zombieland in particular. Rightly or wrongly, I felt burned. For the record, I may have been over-dramatic, in my emotional state, in suggesting that downloading could kill Zombieland 2. It could. In our case, the greater hope/expectation is that it won't. The movie has done very well.

You were very over-dramatic, and here's the reality: Mininova says the R5 copy of Zombieland was downloaded 67,766 times. That's really not so bad. Many recent films have been downloaded millions of times.

On 60 minutes, nothing on that segment had much to do with what is happening with Zombieland. 60 Minutes talked about CAMs, which are sometimes done by drug cartels, but the R5 DVDRip that most are downloading of Zombieland was simply ripped from DVD by someone in Russia or near that.

Don't feel that burned. Your film did well, as you said.

No, I don’t believe that 1 download = 1 lost ticket sale or 1 lost DVD sale. Certainly, there are many people who both contribute to a movie's legitimate B.O. and also download the movie… including, it turns out, the people I singled out on Twitter. There are also many people who download movies who would never pay to see those same movies in any format regardless. But I do believe that there is a significant, non-trivial population of people who might have (in an ideal world with no piracy) paid to see Zombieland, either in theaters or on DVD, but instead chose to watch it for free, because it was easy and didn't cost them anything.

Unfortunately, as soon as Napster went online, we were past the "ideal world". Piracy is here to stay.

No, I don't subscribe to the Robin Hood argument, which claims that rich, greedy Hollywood studios/actors/writers/etc. have enough $ and don't need more. Nor do I subscribe to the argument that examines positive correlations between downloads and box office and concludes that popularity in the one (downloads) is somehow causing the popularity in the other (box office). Correlation does not imply causality.

If you didn't have the middlemen from the Hollywood studios, you would be a lot richer. They don't need the money.

The downloads /= box office argument is hard to calculate. Which is causing the other to go where it does? To me, it seems like a well-hyped movie does well at both. They are tied together. It is stupid to say that downloads help the box office, since all that is (usually) out at that point are CAMs and telesyncs, which about everyone avoids. But good buzz from downloads can help DVD sales.

Some might argue that an ideal world *should* allow unlimited piracy of copyrighted material. I disagree. And I agree with the reasoning behind copyright law. Copyright law grants the owner of a copyright a window of time within which he/she can make money off the copyright. I hate to say it, but people making money off art, even a lot of money, is a good thing. It’s America. It's capitalism. Copyright law is important because it provides financial incentive for artists to set aside other pursuits and devote entire careers to creating and innovating. Movies. Books. Videogames. Songs. These things bring us joy. And joy is worth paying for.

You say the owner of the copyright has a limited window of time? Do you agree with author's life plus 70 years? And sure, make all the money you want, just not off of lawsuits.

But some indie producers don't want copyright forced on them by greedy studios who rake in most of the cash. They want to pay for the production, no more.

Joy is worth paying for...yeah, but there's this little itch that humans have. We want to share the joy.

I can only assume that lovers of piracy relish the improvements in copying/distribution technology that make pirating all the easier and gradually improve the quality of what is being pirated... to where a pirated copy will ultimately be indistinguishable in quality from an original. But take this to its logical conclusion, and it isn't hard to see why everyone should be concerned. Human nature sadly dictates that few people will pay for what they can get for free. In a world where all art is instantly available for nothing, no one will be able to make a living as an artist. Nor will anyone invest any capital in art. So… no more movies. No more videogames. No more albums. TV shows. Etc.

If you will wait for a month or two before a DVD release, that's already the case.

And please, don't use the "nobody will pay for content, so there will be no more" argument. It makes me want to punch the computer screen, it's so stupid. Why isn't that the case yet? The VCR was going to kill TV. Friends copying cassettes was going to kill music. Has photography killed painting? Stop using that argument, artists want to express themselves, and will find a way to monetize it.

Stay away from human nature too. Modern life has suppressed a lot of human nature. As you said, joy is worth paying for. If people are willing to put money in red buckets for poor people during the holidays, they will put in a bit of money for joy. As you said, it's worth paying for.

I by no means want to be an anti-piracy crusader, and I’m now going to step away from the debate. I’m not a very political person. On a very basic level, my tweets were just the defensive reactions of an artist who hates seeing people brazenly proclaim that they’re pirating his work.

Thanks, now we have time to attack the ones that are serious about it.

I really like the genuine debate that has been inspired by this thread. There are obviously different sides of this issue, and different complexities within it. I've been called a lot of things in the last week, a number of which have been pretty crazy, and I just wanted to make the most reasoned response I could. Paying for art isn’t the most objectionable thing in the world. In fact, it’s a very beneficial thing.

Genuine debate? I call it a flamewar. Anyway...we're not stupid. I pay for art.