david geertz's Techdirt Profile

david geertz

About david geertz

david geertz's Comments comment rss

  • Aug Thu, 2010 @ 04:36pm

    Re: Re: is it enough?

    I think London might be out as they would require ongoing residuals based on their union. I think the only way to do this is to use non union players which can be done; however its just a bit more R&D time on the project coordinators end.

    The Evergreen Orchestra in Taiwan is full of Juliard grads and they are non union. Perhaps another good group to approach.

  • Aug Thu, 2010 @ 10:01am

    is it enough?

    This is a brilliant idea: however, I do question the groups ability to get a series of recordings of quality from the amount of money they are raising. I tried to find out which orchestra they were planning to use, as this is a HUGE decision on a project like this and having the best is what most music buffs will want.

    A composer that I know just used an orchestra in Taiwan where the costs are considerably lower for the recording of a film score. The length of the recordings were significantly shorter, but cost more than what is mentioned in the campaign.

    Does anyone know who they are going to use? I would love to contribute to this project but will not do so until I know who the musicians and conductor are.

  • Aug Wed, 2010 @ 04:22pm

    i may not agree with you all the time about stuff on this site Mike, but I'm in full agreement with you on this one. This is just moronic.

  • Aug Wed, 2010 @ 03:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm for freedom of choice

    "However, if I, instead, simply go to the shop down the street, see how they make their pizzas and then MAKE MY OWN COPY and sell it for $5. That's competition."

    This is all fine and dandy if the guy down the street is prepared to outlay the cost for the oven, dough, and other ingredients that go on the pizza. In fact if he chooses to kill the market by setting an unnecessary price anchor that's his business, and in most cases won't be in business for long.

    The same goes for media when someone is planning to copy and earn without compensation to the originator of the work. If I outlay 100K to make a film, I could give two shits if someone first pays out the debt that I have incurred by making the film in the first place. You seem to think that filmmakers and distributors actually care about IP and sharing when in fact, all they really care about is mitigating risk to ensure that they can continue on to the next project.

    You can copy my film all you like. Simply put into my pocket the total amount that it took for me to make it and off you go! When I'm free and clear...you can be too.

    Its not about protectionism....its about debt. plain and simple.

  • Aug Mon, 2010 @ 01:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Worked for me

    This is great example how blogs and social media create confusion. About a year ago I remember reading all the flutter and kaffufle about how you could not afford the license fee for your music and that price tag was going to be more than the budget of the film. If you did not comply you would have to ditch the film or find all new music etc etc etc. There were hundreds of posts on this matter that discussed the legal implications around the matter and that you may actually be forced to into paying.

    This is what got me interested in the first place as it is an important matter in how film producer's plan their projects in advance.

    I'm glad that the current fans no nothing of the copyright matter, I'm just wondering if that was the reason for the early adopters to begin marketing the project?

    The law suit comments were more than likely on linkedin or some other social forum that discusses legal, finance, and film distribution.


  • Aug Mon, 2010 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Worked for me


    I have followed the "plight" of your film since day one and am really glad that its working for you now. My only question regarding SITA SINGS THE BLUES, is do you think your marketing strategy using only word of mouth would have been nearly as successful if you were not trying to leverage the lawsuit that was put forward against you?

    I don't agree with the bullying tactics that they tried on you but for someone who does not know you personally, but did end up watching your film, I can say that it happened as a result of watching due process occur and it piqued my interest to see your film. Do you not think that is was primarily the reason for the marketing success of your film? Would you not fall into the "black swan" category?

    Thanks and congrats on your film by the way...I enjoyed it.

  • Aug Mon, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Re: the inverse is not the solution either

    I made an error. I thought it was coming out on youtube first and now I see its Itunes prior to theatrical. This changes some things but not everything.

    What it does change is the fact that now at least half the price tag of the film will go to 2 intermediaries - Magnolia, and Itunes.

    Anyone out there who still thinks a movie theater takes 50% of the ticket price needs to go back to distribution school.

    Still...I can't wait to see the results.

  • Aug Mon, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    the inverse is not the solution either

    Releasing the online version of a documentary that has a successful book behind it may really bite them in the rump here. I read this blog regularly now and I am for the most part am at around 50% in agreement with most of the opinions, and theories that Mike posts here.

    This one is however, is a very interesting case study that I will be following closely. I actually like Morgan Spurlock and was planning to see this film when it came out in theaters. Now, as it is a documentary and I normally reserve my cinema experience for new releases that i must see and for films that require a big screen, I am more than likely going to watch this film online.

    I've already got the book, and I won't watch the film again as there are only about a dozen films in my library that I would watch repeatedly, and I'm wondering if perhaps a true day and date would have been a better move for this one?

    If they offered this film up on a site like dynamoplayer of eggup I would certainly pay to watch it, but giving it away for free prior to selling tickets may set the wrong anchor for pricing. I hope for the sake of any backers that may have contributed to this production that they get their money back.

    This is truly a risk and an experiment worth watching unfold.

  • Feb Wed, 2010 @ 09:46am

    an overview for those who are still unsure (including Kevin Smith)

    crowdfunding general overview

    There is a lot of discussion beginning to start out there with regard to what crowdfunding and crowdsourcing is and whether or not it is a legal and valuable tool to entreprenuers. its seems like there are specific groups trying to claim the term to fit within their industry subset, and for the most part (in my opinion) most of these opinions are wrong.

    not investing

    first of all there are a bunch of people who continue to challenge the idea that crowdfunding is an investment. this could not be further from the truth and perhaps this is the best place to start to weed out platforms that call themselves crowdfunding sites. crowdfunding falls into these categories

    * donations
    * memberships
    * pre-ordering of a product

    none of these applications gives the person involved any notion of potential upside, long term growth, or ownership in the corporation that is selling the product. think of it this way ? a company has a widget that they need to manufacture and the company that tools it up and makes the product needs a minimum order to put the process in play. the business owner goes out and sells pre-orders of the product and while this happens, a third party trust holds all the money until the minimum is met, at which time funds are released and the widgets are made and delivered and the business owner is now off and running and the crowd that bought the product also becomes in some ways part of his marketing platform as they took part in the process of getting it launched.
    in the case of our site (full disclosure here) at www.biracy.com we sell both a product and a membership that also entitles our members to participate in the film through crowdsourcing models which is also a unique part of our process but not really relevant to this discussion.

    the lawyers

    we think they should focus on finding and shutting down groups that ?claim? they are crowdfunding but in fact are merely using this moniker as a way to solicit money from people, thus creating havoc and trust issues with legitimate groups working in the space.

    registration of with the SEC

    this is ridiculous. here?s why. in a hypothetical case if we were to required to register with the sec, then every member would then need to get a 500 dollar opinion on whether or not they should buy a copy of our DVD. why?because the buyer does need to understand what they are buying. that?s like saying that you need to consult a lawyer before buying a membership to costco or having an opinion provided to you before ordering your christmas baking that makes a donation to little league 3 months prior to delivery. In fact?our membership price is half the amount that i paid for cookies this year through and guess what?they were late! boo hoo. its not like i?m taking the cookies holding them in a jar for a year and then hoping the cookie market is going to climb so i can create an exit strategy and sell my cookies on ebay to some cookie sucker. i?m going to eat them. i purchased the product and consumed it, and somewhere in the process some people benefited?its just business.

    how crowdfunding fits into the financial cycle

    it fits into all the catergories that greg has mentioned from people like indiegogo providing a development platform for writer/directors, to people like us who are funding a 15M dollar feature film. the point to crowdfunding is that it removes the financial control from people who like to watch creative people squirm, and this is what?s really scary to the finance world.

    where it does not fit

    i think crowdfunding does have its limitations as well. i think complex start ups that can?t prove they can provide a finished product should, and will have to stay out of this area for now. An example might be that a biotech firm creating a new drug or product would not be able provide a guarantee of a finished product within a reasonable time period. i think as a result of this they would be ineligible for this process.


  • Feb Wed, 2010 @ 09:39am

    Re: If there is ANY Revenue Split, ownership share etc...it is ILLEGAL

    crowdfunding is NOT a public offering and no its not illegal. Offering financial upside is illegal but allowing fans to preorder an experience is not.