AfterDawn.com

'Zombieland' director speaks of piracy, gets angry via Twitter

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:57:11 GMT

Earlier this week, the writer and director of the popular movie Zombieland, Rhett Reese, lashed out at pirates of his movie, saying it may lead to a sequel not being shot. He even personally attacked a few Twitter members which had posted about downloading and watching the film from their homes.

Zombieland is available as an R5, and was one of the most popular films via P2P of the last three weeks.

Reese has responded to the bad press however, and taken account for yelling at those on Twitter. He makes some interesting points whether or not you are for or against piracy:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PS, thanks for weighing in, everyone, especially those who supported my point of view. Suicide Taxi, in particular, makes a TON of sense to me!

AfterDawn.com

'Zombieland' director speaks of piracy, gets angry via Twitter

YouTube blocking use of native video API on some devices

iPhone headed to South Korea

California approves of new energy standards for HDTVs

Barnes & Noble Nook sold out until 2010

Gameloft moving development from Android platform

YouTube adds automatic captions for deaf viewers

Lady Gaga earned $167 from 1 million plays via Spotify

Proposed UK law would force ISP sanctions against file sharers

Xbox Live Gold free for the weekend

PS3 is firmware upgradeable to 3D

Overpriced PlayStation 2 officially headed for Brazil

Sony continues strong hardware sales in Japan

Microsoft to face class action lawsuit over Xbox Live bans

Sony talks subscription-based services for PSN