From the very first movie that was downloaded from the Internet the entertainment industry has been yelling and ranting about how the nasty evil Internet was killing the movie business and taking food out of the mouths of hard working people. Then as file lockers and BitTorrent files became a drop dead easy way for just about anyone to use to get the movies and other stuff that they wanted that ranting has gotten only louder.

It doesn’t matter that over the years just about anyone with any sense in their heads and who understood technology was telling exactly the opposite story that the movie industry wasn’t in fact being hurt by these types of downloads. It didn’t matter that while the popularity of things like BitTorrent grew so did the box office profits of the movie industry setting new records almost every year.

Well there is a new study out titled, Reel Piracy: The Effects of Online Piracy on International Box Office Sales, and guess what they found out?

Yup, BitTorrents have had no effect on box office profits. In fact if there is any blame for loss of money to be placed it is right at the feet of the movie industry itself.

According to the study, the factor with the largest impact on piracy is the delay between U.S. and international releases of films. Because of the delay in international releases, often the only way to get a film may be to pirate or wait. Given that choice, anyone who doesn’t want to waithas to turn to piracy whereas if a legitimate venue of purchase was available, at least some of that revenue could be retained.  The study estimates that if this pre-release piracy binge were eliminated — by releasing earlier, or simultaneously with the U.S. — overall losses could be reduced by 7%.

via Geekosystem

Of course we aren’t saying the outright piracy is right or a good thing but the declaration that it is killing the movie business is patently ridiculous and is being proven so each and every day, and with every new non-partisan study that is done.

Not so quick with the BitTorrent piracy killing the box office argument. is a post from: The Inquisitr

Yesterday we heard about Craig Davis, VP of Urban Promotions for EMI, who came out and stated how he believes that the whole SOPA thing is the wrong way for entertainment business to try and protect their businesses. Granted he qualified his statement by saying that he was speaking for himself and not as an official representative of EMI and their position on the matter.

However refreshing it might have been to hear an industry insider come out on the side of the consumer in matter like this the fact is we have and entertainment industry that will do anything it can to protect itself from having to actually try and come to grips with a changing world; you know like Warner Bros.

Yes folks Warner Bros. is at it again and once more Netflix is the target for its anti-consumer behavior as we discover that not only are they making Netflix customers wait 56 between the release of a Warner Bros. movie on DVD and being able to rent it from Netflix but now that want to make you wait before you can even add it to your queue.

Warner Brothers is now imposing additional stipulations for its DVD movie new releases. Starting Feb. 1, the company has decided to restrict Netflix users from adding any new DVD releases to their queue until 28 days after the DVD goes on sale in retail stores, VentureBeat has learned.

While Netflix is unable to offer new DVD movies for rent during the 56-day delay window, the company currently allows subscribers to add the titles to their rental queue. This is particularly useful for Netflix subscribers because the new DVDs automatically ship out once the 56-day delay period ends.

via VentureBeat

The real problem here is that it won’t be Warner Bros. getting the heat when people suddenly find that they can’t add DVD to their queue but rather it will be Netflix that everyone starts yelling at. Of course this is all happening because Warner Bros. is under the mistaken belief that by screwing with their customers that this is going to magically increase the sale of DVD, which are hugely profitable for the entertainment companies.

Nice move Warner Bros, ya bunch of jerks.

Warner Bros. continues to show mind-numbing stupidity and anti-consumerism is a post from: The Inquisitr

Lionsgate Entertainment recently announced plans to remake cult classic American Psycho, based on the novel by author Bret Easton Ellis.

American Psycho, famously adapted to film once before in 2000, celebrates a whispered status as that indie flick where Christian Bale gets naked and kills people with a chainsaw. The film, alongside 2004’s The Machinist could be said to have helped launch the now-monolithic Christian Bale’s career, and is a treasured favorite by indie-film enthusiasts.

The film is now being updated to a contemporary New York setting under the guidance of commercial and music video director Noble Jones, whose efforts and vision have received the treasured blessing of the novel’s author, Bret Easton Ellis.

Ellis tweeted on the 14th:

“Haters beware: I just had a long discussion with Noble Jones, the writer/director of the “new” American Psycho movie. His take is genuine…”

Though he hasn’t elaborated further, this kind of enthusiasm from the novel’s own author should somewhat allay the concerns of the original film’s dedicated and skeptical following.

Since the film is still very early in pre-production, casting news is slim, with only a rumor circulating that Ellis’s own choices regarding he-who-will-fill-Bale’s-shoes are little-known actors Miles Fisher (Gossip Girl, Mad Men) or Scott Disick (Keeping up with the Kardashians).

What about you? Did you read the book? Did you see the film? Should they leave well enough alone?

“Genuine” American Psycho Remake on the way is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you listen to the garbage spewed forth by industry trade groups like the MPAA and the RIAA you would think that the music and movie industry is on the verge of collapse because of those nasty dirty pirates who spend their days, and nights, stealing other peoples work.

So it is interesting, and refreshing, to here people like Mike Lang, CEO of Miramax, and Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos suggest that piracy isn’t really that much of an issue, especially if you give people an easy to buy and watch, or listen to, their digital content.

Max Lang suggested in a recent keynote speech at the MIPCOM conference that people really don’t want to be pirates as long as they can easily get what they want. For Miramax piracy has never been that big of an issue but more of making sure the customer can get their content without jumping through hoops. As well Lang disputed that the main problem for the music industry was piracy but rather the rise of digital monopolies.

Another problem, related to the pricing issue, is the emergence of digital monopolies such as the one Apple has in the digital music business. This threatens the music industry more than piracy, Miramax’s CEO suggested.

“Apple is the strongest company in the music industry because there was not enough competition, and still to this day there is not enough competition. As an industry it can’t then influence, packaging, merchandising – all the things that are vital,” Lang said.

via TorrentFreak

As Ted Sarandos said in his keynote – “when consumers tell you what they want, give it to them. Figure out a way to give it to them because if you don’t they’ll figure out a way to get it.

Got to admit that it was interesting hearing this kind of talk from some industry big-wigs. Too bad the rest of the industry doesn’t clue in.

Miramax CEO says piracy isn’t as much a danger as digital monopolies is a post from: The Inquisitr

I swear some people have absolutely no sense of humor, either that or they couldn’t get a clue if it was stapled to their freaking forehead.

Such is the case of Professor James Miller and his run in with the campus police at the University of Wisconsin (UWS) when they apparently saw something illegal about Miller displaying a poster of Nathan Fillion’s leading character in the cult sci-fi classic Firefly and removed it from his door.

Not one to let stupidity go unanswered Miller posted another poster that said “Warning: Fascism” on his door which not only got him another visit from the campus police but also got  him reported to the “threat assessment team” and threatened with criminal charges.

So what was the Firefly poster that started this whole thing?

Here it is folks .. the big bad nasty threatening poster.

The UWS campus police reasoning for removing the poster?

Walter responded that “the poster can be interpreted as a threat by others and/or could cause those that view it to believe that you are willing/able to carry out actions similar to what is listed.” Walter also threatened Miller with criminal charges: “If you choose to repost the article or something similar to it, it will be removed and you could face charges of disorderly conduct.”

Later on September 16, Miller placed a new poster on his office door in response to Walter’s censorship. The poster read “Warning: Fascism” and included a cartoon image of a silhouetted police officer striking a civilian. The poster mocked, “Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death. Keep fascism away from children and pets.”

Astoundingly, Walter escalated the absurdity. On September 20, Walter emailed Miller again, stating that her office had removed the poster because it “depicts violence and mentions violence and death.” She added that UWS’s “threat assessment team,” in consultation with the university general counsel’s office, had decided to have the poster removed, and that this poster was reasonably expected to “cause a material and/or substantial disruption of school activities and/or be constituted as a threat.” College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Interim Dean Raymond Hayes has scheduled a meeting with Miller about “the concerns raised by the campus threat assessment team” for this Friday.

via The Fire

Morons. Really, there is not much else you can say other than Morons.

Makes me wonder what they’d do if they saw a Lazarus Long quote.

Only in America could a professor faces charges for displaying a Firefly poster is a post from: The Inquisitr

I can’t even remember the last time I stepped foot in a movie theater but I still remember the ticket price shock and the jaw dropping snack food prices, and this was after fighting to find parking that didn’t need me to visit the bank first for a new mortgage.

Then there are all the horror stories from my friends, those brave enough to venture forth to watch a movie in all its glory, about stupid people and even dumber seating that left you feeling like a sardine in an overcrowded can.

There has been various attempts over the years to try and make it a better experience but on the whole theater owners seem to think that the only reason we suffer through these types of indignities is because we want to see the movie and there is no other way to do that, so screw making it an enjoyable experience.

Well there are many other ways to see those movies now, legally or illegally, and people are fed up with being treated like mindless sardines and just something to gouge money out of. We have seen movie attendance go down over the last number of years, even though the movie business is still making incredible amounts of money, but all the theater owners can think of is to con us with 3D garbage and bottles of aspirin on the way out for the headaches caused by the movies.

Well it seems that there might finally be a backlash against all this happening in New York of all places, which means that if it takes off there it is very possible for this new trend to hit your town.

So what’s the idea?

How about incredible food that you might actually want to eat and pay for without crying. Yes it seems that gourmet foods and independent film theaters are getting some serious attention and a lot of love.

At the new Nitehawk Cinema in Williamsburg, movie trailers aren’t the only pre-feature offerings. There are appetizers, too: deviled eggs with bacon bits, chicken wings dusted with sesame or croquettes stuffed with Serrano ham.

All are created by a Michelin-starred chef, and brought to you table-side by a server who makes sure your Gruyère-topped burger arrives just as “Midnight in Paris” enters its second act onscreen.

Nitehawk is New York’s first movie theater with full table service, and it is one of several boutique theaters offering plush seating, waiter service and ambitious programming not typically found at the local multiplex.

via Wall Street Journal (needed a subscription to read the whole post)

If you head over to the site for Nitehawk Cinema in Williamsburg not only will you see what is on the agenda for the big screen but you’ll also see what is being served for dinner and drinks during the showing.

And it seems that it is not just the small independents that are beginning to see the light as both new cinema chains like Cinepolis Luxury Cinemas and old guard ones like AMC are realizing that they need to change their way of attracting moviegoers and making them want to come back.

Cinepolis Luxury Cinemas, is a new entry in the field in the U.S. but they are looking at opening up several VIP style theaters

Cinepolis — a large multi-plex theater chain with operations in Latin America, India and Brazil — is adding theaters in the U.S. that serve cocktails and gourmet finger foods. Movie-goers can order from a menu of sushi, paninis and wraps while sitting in theaters equipped with roomy, leather seating.

The first Orange County theater will take over a 7-screen Edwards in Laguna Niguel, which is closing Aug. 14. A second Cinepolis — where a meal and a movie will average roughly $30 per person — is planned for an Edwards in Rancho Santa Margarita.

“The whole idea is luxury cinema,” said Carlos Wellman, operations director of Cinépolis. “We are not McDonald’s. However, we think we give people a value for their money.”

via MSNBC

For AMC though it will probably be a longer process but they definitely have the advertising down pat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JcGAJXFNWw&w=550

Is there a new type of theater on the horizon? One that won’t suck? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Well, actually you might as long as you could both pull over at the nearest place so you could take some pictures of this incredible creation from 54-year-old Roongrojna Sangwongprisarn from Bangkok.

Using nothing more than scrap metal from cars, motorcycles, and bikes Sangwongprisarn sculpts it all together to create metal sculptures because really that is what this Alien motorcycle is, with the benefit of being able to be driven.

I mean, really, who wouldn’t want to pull up to a bar riding something like this?

via DVICE

This Alien motorcycle isn’t something you’d want to see coming at you in the rear view mirror is a post from: The Inquisitr

Wow, I realize that church attendance might be down but isn’t this a little extreme, or maybe it’s a hellva cool idea; but the gang at Lifechurch.tv obviously think it’s a great idea.

It seems that the church has a yearly get together where the sermons are geared around movies being used as the lens through which they “contextualize” Christian values.

This year the lucky movie is Tron: Legacy and as you can see by the images they really got into the passion of the event.

The sets, built by enthusiastic volunteers, include a number of black-light enhanced locations and items from the film, including Flynn’s arcade, several (disappointingly non-functional) light-cycles and even an End of Line bar, complete with tonic water (but alcohol-free) drinks that glow. Apart from promises of eternal salvation, you’d be hard pressed to find a more effective way to coax geeks into a church. Despite the flashy decorations, rest-assured (or be disappointed) that no one will be praying to Tron, at least in theory.

via Geekosystem

Let the countdown to the cease and desist letter begin now.

Church goes all Tron: Legacy on its parishioners [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Get out the Kleenex folks because this one will have the tears just a flowing and setting the bar for wedding proposals higher.

Here’s the story from Matt, the boyfriend:

“My girlfriend Ginny gets taken to the movie theater to see ‘Fast Five.’ After a preview for the Hangover 2, a trailer for a movie comes on. A trailer I made of her father and I where I ask her father for her hand in marriage. After he gives me permission, I race off to the theater she is at to ask her to marry me.

“What she doesn’t know is our family and friends are in the theater with her watching the whole thing, along with about 100 strangers.”

via My Modern Metropolis

Match this guys.

The most awesome, the most incredible marriage proposal EVAR! Video goes viral is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last Saturday evening I found myself with not much to do so I decided to drop by my Netflix(Canada) account and see if there was anything I felt like watching. As I was scrolling through the lists of new releases on the service I thought I saw Iron Man 2; which surprised me all to hell because I thought that would have been too new a movie to hit Netflix Canada yet.

However, my eyes didn’t deceive me and I finally got to watch a movie I had been waiting for because according to a post I read over at Engadget by Richard Lawler it appears that Netflix and Paramount struck a deal for all of Paramounts first-run movies.

Here’s the kicker though – the deal is only good in Canada so far with no word of a U.S. deal.

So for once Canadians get to go neener neener to our American neighbors as we settle back to watch all the new Paramount movies.

Thank’s Netflix.

Netflix and Paramount, for once Canada gets something first is a post from: The Inquisitr

Netflix is a major force on the web as they continue to grow and take a large percentage of our online viewing time. The company is constantly looking at ways to grow its audience  but the one thing that the company has stayed away from, especially after shutting down its Red Envelope indie film division, is getting behind original content made just for Netflix.

Well according to a report out of Deadline Hollywood this could be about to change given that Netflix has outbid several traditional old media networks for the series “House of Cards”. The deal is reported to be in the neighborhood of $100 million,or more.

For a company that has only 20 million subscribers, in contrast to the cable networks which have 127 million subscribers, this could be a huge gamble but one that if it pays off could hold big dividends for Netflix. Not to mention giving the cable executives yet another reason to be stocking up on cases of aspirins.

The $100 Million bet by Netflix to get into the original content game is a post from: The Inquisitr

People’s feelings about graffiti ranges from loving the work as a new form of urban artwork while others consider it a blight on neighborhoods devaluing home values. Of course some of these opinions have value as graffiti can range from the simple tagging of gangs marking their territory to incredible social commentaries.

Of the second one of the best has to be the ever illusive and unknown Banksy, who appears to originate from Britain but not totally sure. His works have been found just about everywhere around the world and have become subject of discussion and objects of art.

Then last year Banksy became involved in the making of a documentary, Exit Through the Gift Shop, about graffiti artists and amazingly enough it is now in the running for an Oscar for Best Documentary. However this has said to have caused some concern among the Oscar organizers as to whether they would be willing to let him accept the award while in disguise.

While we are still some weeks away from the Oscar ceremony some people are wondering if Banksy hasn’t already hit town as graffiti of his style has started showing up around Los Angeles.

And the biggest question of all: Is Banksy in town less than two weeks before the Oscar show? The evidence to suggest that he might be comes from, of all places, actress Lauren Conrad’s Twitter account, where she posted this photo with the caption, “Is Banksy in LA?”

Jetset Graffiti picked it up and wrote, “Yes, it’s true. Banksy is beginning his press tour for the upcoming Oscar’s [sic] in Los Angeles.”

The LAist website linked to Jetset Graffiti, and said the artwork was “likely” the work of Banksy.

The stenciled art is in an alley in the Westwood section of Los Angeles, near the UCLA campus. A couple of other possible pieces have surfaced as well – though it’s impossible to tell if they’re genuine.

via The Wrap

There are some who are suggesting that these images aren’t by Banksy but rather part of a publicity stunt by the Oscar organizers to build up some street buzz around the normally staid movie event.

Is Banksy beginning his press tour in advance of the Oscars? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Rumor has it that we may be facing the coming of Matrix 4 and 5, in 3D of course, and as bad as that might be I stumbled across an video clip of the work in progress; or maybe it’s for the next Transformer’s – not entirely sure but either way it looks to be set in India.

Note: this post is heavy on sarcasm and humor. It in no way suggests that this is what Matrix 4 & 5 will look like. They will probably be worse.

via Design You Trust

Matrix 4 & 5, or maybe Transformers 4.5 – Bollywood style is a post from: The Inquisitr

There has never been any doubt that when you walk into a store and plonk down your money, then walk out with your purchase you can do anything you want with it. You don’t have to ask the store where you bought the item. You don’t have to ask the company that manufactured the item, and you don’t have to ask permission from the person who might have created the item in the first place.

This is because all physical goods fall under what is commonly referred to as first-rights doctrine which means you buy it and you can do what you want with it.

As much as we might want to believe that this applies to everything we buy the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. We don’t and especially so with it comes to electronic goods like e-books, software, videos, or music.

This is something that I have mentioned many time before but it is sometimes hard to convince people that this is indeed the case. You don’t own the goods – you ‘own’ a bunch of legalese that can change at any time.

Ed Bott over at ZDNet’s Microsoft Report has an excellent post that breaks down and looks at the legalities of iTunes, Amazon, and eMusic when it comes to your rights when you buy music from their services.

If you buy a digital album from an online service such as the iTunes store, Amazon MP3, or eMusic, you have no legal right to lend that album to a friend, as you could if you had purchased a CD. If you decide after a few listens that you hate the album, well, tough. You can’t resell it. You can’t even legally give it away.

When it comes to software things become even more convoluted. Over at WinExtra I wrote a post about this back in November of 2009 where I talked about this:

The problem is that those EULAs are sneaky and on more than one occasion they have been found to contain more than one type of gotcha. With the exception of a rare breed of computer users who do indeed examine each and every EULA of every piece of software they install most of us just click on I Agree and carry on our merry way. It is only later we find out that maybe we should have read that EULA after all.

In this case however, unlike with things like music, books or movies, this post was about a piece of software you can download that will scan those nasty EULA that we never read. The point was, like Ed’s, that we are very quickly becoming a world were owning something is becoming a figment of our imagination.

If you don’t think so take a moment and read Ed’s post and as he says at the end:

The moral of the story? If you really want to own your music, forget about downloading and buy a CD. You might even save some money compared to a digital download.

Never has caveat emptor meant more.

So, You think you own that software, book, or movie you downloaded eh. Think again. is a post from: The Inquisitr

If there is one constant in our online world it is the whining and moaning from old media, and to a growing extent new media, about how they are losing money because consumers don’t want to pay the same price for electronic versions of goods as they do for the actual in-hand physical version.

In fact there is a post currently on Fast Company titled Internet Users Still Cheap, Spend Only $1 to $10 on Digital Content, and while it might be a great pageview grabbing headline I find it rather insulting. In the post Austin Carr writes:

The digital marketplace is the likely savior of most industries. That is, if consumers are willing to spend money on the web. Do we expect too much for free online?

Sorry but it’s not just a matter of wanting everything for free, even though that is still a driving factor, but rather, I believe, that the consumer understands a very fundamental difference between online electronic versions of physical goods and the goods themselves – it’s availability.

You see when you walk into a store to buy a product you can see that there are only so many of copies of the item that is available. Whether it be a movie DVD, a game, a book or any item that is inherently available in electronic form, the price of a physical version is based on the cost of actually manufacturing those physical copies and making them available.

Yet when you go to buy that online in its pure electronic form those incurred costs change, and change radically. The consumer almost instinctively gets this and that is something that content producers continually try to ignore. The reality is that online electronic goods shouldn’t cost the same, or in some cases more than their brick and mortar equivalents.

Online consumers aren’t cheap. If they were businesses like Amazon or even the many t-shirt businesses would be able to stay in business. The consumer is smart enough to know that a physical product, whether it be a t-shirt, or a book, or even a physical copy of a movie or music album, has a cost to produce and are more than willing to pay those prices.

So when a consumer turns around and says that they don’t want to pay physical goods prices for the electronic versions they aren’t being cheap and to suggest otherwise is insulting their intelligence. They are however more than willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price as long as you make it easy for them.

Being smart online consumers doesn’t mean being cheap is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you ever wanted proof of just how moronically stupid the movie industry is just take a gander at this statement from Jeff Bewkes, Chief Executive Officer of Time Warner.

“So far the 28-day window has clearly been a success versus no delay,” Time Warner Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bewkes said today on a conference call. “The question of whether we ought to go longer is very much under scrutiny. It may well be a good idea.”

via Business Week

Let’s just let that sink in for a second.

Yup, he did say that.

Not just happy with making people who want to hand over money to watch a movie wait 28 days under the assumption that this will increase DVD sales it seems they now want to extend beyond that to even longer wait times.

I’m willing to bet that it will have the opposite effect and could end up driving people to actually trying to find alternative ways to watch the movies they want to but without paying anything.

Yup ..smart move Jeff.

Time Warner loves Netflix’s 28 day delay so much it wants longer delays is a post from: The Inquisitr

There is no doubt that the Internet has forever changed our entertainment industry. Even though the power brokers in the industry are doing everything they can to keep their talons wrapped tightly around the creation and distribution of what we watch and listen to the world of entertainment is in a total state of flux.

From things like the Roku box, Boxee, Netflix, Amazon and Apple the landscape of how we find and watch our entertainment, be it television shows or movies, has shifted and continues to shift. Rather than having to watch the things we like at a time and day that the entertainment companies think we should we are able to pick when, and just importantly – where, we watch what we want to watch.

Except, what about serendipity?

What about those favorite programs that we came across totally by accident the first time because we were surfing the channels out of boredom?

This was a point that David Worthington at Technologizer raised a few days ago in a post and it got me thinking about this whole thing.

I know many people who have “unplugged” themselves from the shackles of costly year-long contracts. Why pay for channels that you don’t watch? Those people are typically more technically savvy than most of the population. I just recently upgraded my mother’s 1980s big screen TV to an HDTV.

My mother and I find what’s on TV in much the same way: we channel surf or use a “guide.” There are more than a few shows that drew me in by happenstance. AMC’s “Breaking Bad” is my favorite “accident.” Internet TV is surfing with a net, keeping us in the familiar, and not venturing out into the unexplored.

Sure, Internet TV has media guides that showcase featured content, but where does that leave programs that aren’t already in the spotlight? Would Internet TV allow me to stumble onto a “Twilight Zone” rerun at 3 AM? Sometimes randomness is nice – I don’t always like to know exactly what I’m looking for.

Would Mad Men be the hit it is if not first discovered by accident by some folks who then shared it with all their friends? How about Glee, or Dexter, or Sons of Anarchy?

There is something to be said for the joy of finding something totally by chance and instantly realizing that you have a new favorite show, which you then share with all your friends.

So one has to wonder if by removing that option to boredom surf if we aren’t actually having a negative impact on the quality of the shows we discover and watch. By removing that serendipitous moment because watching entertainment has become a ‘destination’ rather than a winding road are we removing the chances of finding that next great hit?

Is the Internet actually destroying the ‘surprise’ of television? is a post from: The Inquisitr

This is a curious story that popped up over at the TorrentFreak blog this morning. It seems that the Internet movie database IMDb, owned by Amazon, has decided that a publicly funded movie that is due to be released for free via BitTorrent doesn’t get to be listed in their database.

The horror movie, The Tunnel, by Julian Harvey and Enzo Tedeschi is being funded by the public who are buying frames of the finished movie for one dollar each. Once the movie is done it will be distributed freely using BitTorrent. However when the they try and get the movie listed with IMDb as part of their promotional push they have been continually denied.

In June, IMDb told the team that if a movie is not set up with a production company with a history of theatrically released movies, getting it listed at the early stages of development would not be possible. However, The Tunnel has backing from Zapruder’s Other Films which already have IMDb listings.

Undeterred by this setback, the creators decided to have another attempt at a listing once filming proper was underway, but all that resulted in was a further rejection in August.

Thanks for your new title addition to IMDb. Our title managers have recently examined the information which you supplied and it appears this title will not qualify for inclusion until it is in an advanced stage of production or completed, sorry.

The rejections continued, even though the team providing several trade magazine listings, news articles and other supporting material to show the film is legitimate. Then in September, and despite the Australian Director’s Guild recognising the movie’s online marketing campaign with an ADG Award nomination, IMDb rejected The Tunnel again saying that they can find no evidence to suggest the movie exists.

Enzo told TorrentFreak that he believes that it’s the movie’s distribution model which has caused this reaction from IMDb. The third rejection letter from IMDb says:

Hello. Please provide distribution info or evidence it will be released in 2010. Thank you.

“Seeing as we announced our distribution plan via torrents, a method that is completely within our control, we can’t see what ‘distribution info’ we could provide,” Enzo told us.

“There is no official deal in place to make that happen, as it isn’t controlled by a ‘distributor’ as such. The only conclusion we can reach is that in the absence of a ‘proper’ distributor, they won’t list us.”

Talk about discouraging new methods of distribution.

IMDb denies listing to a BitTorrent only movie is a post from: The Inquisitr

Their newest plan according to a report in Bloomberg today is that Warner Bros, Sony Pictures and Disney want to charge you $20 to $30 buck to watch a movie on your television before the release of the same movie DVD.

Calling it a premium service would let you watch movies at home long before the typical three to four month release window for DVD or first-run on cable.

“I think there are a number of other products that we will be able to create through Internet-connected television, particularly when you consider our brand focus,” Robert Iger, CEO of Burbank, California-based Disney said at a Goldman Sachs Groups Inc. conference on Sept. 21.

Sony Corp. tested the market with users of its Bravia TV by offering the Will Smith movie “Hancock” in 2008 and the animated film “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” in 2009 for $24.95. The Tokyo-based owner of Sony Pictures hasn’t announced plans for another movie through its TV sets.

Time Warner Inc. Chief Financial Officer John Martin told the Goldman Sachs conference in New York last week that the company’s Warner Bros. studio expects to begin tests on the service later this year. He said he expected the offering to be priced at $20 to $30 per viewing.

Source: Bloomberg

I’m not sure exactly what makes movie companies think that I am going to be willing to fork over $30 for a movie that I wouldn’t even pay to go to see in the theater, never mine buy a DVD for or pay some cable company to watch “on-demand”.

The fact is that maybe, just maybe, three or four movies a year are worth paying to see but if that is the case then I want to pay to see them in a theater, in all their glory, and not on some 32″ or 42″ LCD screen in my living room – that’s for watch re-runs or Netflix on, not paying $30 to watch a movie on.

Seriously? $30 to watch a movie on cable before DVD release? is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s been interesting watching the back and forth over the launch of Netflix in Canada.

First off the whole nonsense about Netflix using actors during the launch announcement to talk to journalists – ya it was dumb, really dumb. However it is handy to remember that this is an American company coming into Canada and for the most part companies from the US have a pretty condescending viewpoint of us.

That aside I was more interested in what the reaction from the tech world in Canada would be and I wasn’t surprised at all that for the most part they panned it. From Gillian Shaw at the Vancouver Sun we get this

So far it’s not resonating with me. I got an early look with a free trial that Netflix gave me to try out the service. When that expires it’s unlikely I’ll find the service worth paying for unless the selection expands considerably. And that’s even at $7.99 a month, which is below the $8.99 US a month it costs our American neighbors.

Not to be out done Tris Hussey, editor of the Canadian channel at The Next Web, has this to say about the service

The question that I thought would be easy, the reason that Canadians were waiting for Netflix, what will I be able to watch, well that is a huge disappointment. Like epic fail huge.

First thing this morning I checked out Netflix.ca and wanted to see if I could catch up on Big Bang Theory before Thursday. Nope. Hmm. Okay, hey I watched Sherlock Holmes (the new one) last night on Movie Central…not on Netflix Canada. Okay, okay the new Nikita. It’s filmed in Toronto, that has to be there. Nope.

New movies? Broadcast shows that I might miss on TV but will want to watch? No dice.

Now I will say that I to was a little disappointed with what is being offered up by Netflix Canada but I also totally expected exactly what we got – the leftovers. The stuff that won’t cost Netflix and arm and a leg to stream or that they won’t have to spend months negotiating with broadcasters and government regulators over.

You see I totally expected that we wouldn’t be getting first run movies like they do in the US or that we would be starting off from the jump with all the seasons of everyone’s favorite US televisions shows. More to the point, anyone who thought for one moment that Netflix Canada was going to be a carbon copy of what the US gets is living in a dream world.

What a lot of people in Canada seem to forget is that our process for getting any online entertainment it totally different and much more difficult that in the US. Not only do the broadcast right holders in Canada have too much say over what happens but we also have a bureaucratic dinosaur called the Canadian Radio and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) and their moronic Canada Content rules that all broadcasters, radio and television, must abide by.

When it comes to the rights holder there is no better example than the music industry and Internet services like Pandora who would love nothing better than to come to Canada but find themselves facing this kind of crap:

Re:Sound, the agency that collects music royalties in Canada on behalf of record companies and performing artists, has filed a request with federal regulators.

Starting next year, it wants to charge web-based music sites that stream to mobile devices the greater of two figures: 45 per cent of the site’s gross revenues in Canada or 7.5-tenths of a cent for every song streamed. That’s on top of other royalties music services must pay to SOCAN, a separate agency that represents songwriters and music publishing companies.

The proposal, which needs approval from the Copyright Board of Canada, has prompted Pandora to abandon any short-term plans to come to Canada. Canadians who visit the company’s website are told that, due to licensing restrictions, they cannot sign up for the service.

“Radio delivered over AM/FM in Canada pays a rate of 2.1 per cent of revenue,” Westergren writes.

“In other words, the Canadian music labels are demanding that radio delivered over a mobile phone via the internet pay over 20 times what radio delivered over AM/FM pays.”

Source: CBC News

And trust me it is no different when it comes to television or movies that want to get play in Canada. I remember as a kid whose father was a major write for Canadian television shows the long discussions that would go on at dinner parties at our home about the CRTC, the Canadian Content rules and how that was going to screw up everything.

This is the minefield that Netflix has walked into, just as any other company from outside of Canada will experience, as it tries to launch a Canadian service. It’s not just the amount of blood money that Canadian rights holders are demanding, or the bureaucratic maze they have to wind their way through but also the amount of time it takes for all this to happen. They don’t call Canada the laid back nation for nothing – these kind of negotiation don’t take months but rather years.

All that said I didn’t expect a carbon copy of the US version of Netflix but I am also more than willing to give them time, and my money, for them to make it as good a service as our government and broadcast rights holders will allow because trust me it isn’t up to Netflix as to how bad the Canadian version is. No, that rest entirely in our own backyard.

Did you really think Netflix Canada was going to be fantastic? is a post from: The Inquisitr