• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Aztec 1948 documentary


Forums New posts
P

Paul Kimball

Guest
FYI, some criminal has posted the entire Aztec 1948 documentary I did back in 2003-04 on YouTube (and yes, copyright infringement is a crime). I posted about it at my blog yesterday, and why I'm not too concerned about it this time. Here is the link, and from there you can go to YouTube and watch the whole thing if you want (at least until it's taken down).

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2007/01/aztec-1948.html

Paul
 
There are entire episodes of South Park floating around YouTube. It's like a victory garden for copyright-infringers.
 
Well, at least more people get to see it now.

I like Micheal Moore's take on file sharing. He basically doesn't care as long as others aren't making money off his work at the exclusion of him.

I visit a website that allows you to see most the South Park episodes. Youtube's quality is usually poor.
 
A.LeClair said:
I like Micheal Moore's take on file sharing. He basically doesn't care as long as others aren't making money off his work at the exclusion of him.
Click to expand...

As usual, Moore is full of it. Let's see someone post a quality version of one of his docs on the Internet, for free distribution, and see how fast it gets taken down. Of course, Moore would blame the distributor.

The truth is that most documentaries are made on extremely tight budgets, and, in Canada, with public (i.e. taxpayer's) money invested. When they get distributed for free, in any way, it not only takes money from the producer (who often has to defer some of his or her fees to get the project made), but from the public (i.e. taxpayer's) investors. Future projects are partly judged by those same investors by how much earlier projects have recouped.

Ergo, by taking away recoupment (not profit, remember, but just recoupment of the initial investment), free file sharing makes it more difficult to get new films funded - including films about UFOs and the paranormal.

So, while it seems like they're just sharing info, they are actually making it harder in the long-term to get projects made, and information out there.

Now, with Aztec, it was all private investment, so I'll leave it up to them to enforce it (although Im the copyright holder), because the formula noted above isn't applicable, so no harm to me or my company or future projects.

Meanwhile... never, ever, trust Michael Moore! :)

Paul
 
paulkimball said:
FYI, some criminal has posted the entire Aztec 1948 documentary I did back in 2003-04 on YouTube (and yes, copyright infringement is a crime). I posted about it at my blog yesterday, and why I'm not too concerned about it this time. Here is the link, and from there you can go to YouTube and watch the whole thing if you want (at least until it's taken down).

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2007/01/aztec-1948.html

Paul
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

You mention copyright infringement regarding your film, but on your very own website you have music videos. Are you not endorsing infringements by posting videos in which the uploader probably does not have the permission to do so?
 
idontunderstand said:
Hi Paul,

You mention copyright infringement regarding your film, but on your very own website you have music videos. Are you not endorsing infringements by posting videos in which the uploader probably does not have the permission to do so?
Click to expand...

That's a good point, but I'm pretty sure (although I would have to double-check) that YouTube (and similar sites) has an agreement with the major record labels to cover that.

Regardless, one can differentiate music videos, which are still viewed primarily as promotional tools to move albums and singles, from products which are intended to be the final end use, such as a documetnary. To put it another way, you won't see me downloading music illegally, but, as a former musician, I do view videos differently, because they are created not to be sold (unless as part of a compilation), but to be watched in order to encourage people to buy the album, or the song.

There is a difference between uploading a small segment of something (and a video is just one song from an album), and uploading the entire enchilada, i.e. a documentary.

If, for example, someone wanted to upload a clip of one of my films, and then provide a link to where the film could be purchased, I would have no problem with that. But by uploading the entire film, you are directly competing with the producers, even though you aren't selling it. That's something I do have a problem with, although not in the case of Aztec 1948, for reasons I stated at my blog.

In other words, a music video is like a promo clip from an album. I don't think you would find any musicians who would have a problem with it being uploaded and watched as much as possible. However, if one were to object, I would expect YouTube to remove the content from their site; I would certainly remove it from mine.

Best regards,
Paul
 
paulkimball said:
That's a good point, but I'm pretty sure (although I would have to double-check) that YouTube (and similar sites) has an agreement with the major record labels to cover that.

Regardless, one can differentiate music videos, which are still viewed primarily as promotional tools to move albums and singles, from products which are intended to be the final end use, such as a documetnary. To put it another way, you won't see me downloading music illegally, but, as a former musician, I do view videos differently, because they are created not to be sold (unless as part of a compilation), but to be watched in order to encourage people to buy the album, or the song.

There is a difference between uploading a small segment of something (and a video is just one song from an album), and uploading the entire enchilada, i.e. a documentary.

If, for example, someone wanted to upload a clip of one of my films, and then provide a link to where the film could be purchased, I would have no problem with that. But by uploading the entire film, you are directly competing with the producers, even though you aren't selling it. That's something I do have a problem with, although not in the case of Aztec 1948, for reasons I stated at my blog.

In other words, a music video is like a promo clip from an album. I don't think you would find any musicians who would have a problem with it being uploaded and watched as much as possible. However, if one were to object, I would expect YouTube to remove the content from their site; I would certainly remove it from mine.

Best regards,
Paul
Click to expand...

Fair enough man. Seems a bit ambiguous to what is considered legal in respect of using videos online. I think the video share websites know that having to obtain full copyright by their users would kill most of the content dead. The very fluid and dynamic nature of sharing videos almost requires instant action on part of the user.

A convoluted process of rights tracking , I'm sure would put a lot of people off.

I agree about the promotion using the videos. However its easy to rip the audio content from the video, and compile an entire album to an mp3 player (not that I would do anything like that, ahem!) lol

Cheers!
 
Back
Top