question of the day: Shouldn’t Hollywood condemn Ashton Kutcher’s ‘piracy’ of ‘Killers’?I noted in last Friday’s Question of the Day that the Katherine Heigl/Ashton Kutcher flick Killers wouldn’t be screening for critics before it opens tomorrow. (I’ll attend a courtesy screening for press tomorrow morning, and will have a review asap afterward.) Lionsgate’s reason for this? The studio wants to “capitalize on the revolution in social media” by allowing fans to “promote” the film by yakking about it on Twitter and Facebook and the like. Assuming the fans actually like the film, that is. But even if the fans don’t like it, a fair few movie tickets will already have been sold before word gets out. And now it seems that Lionsgate has found another way to hijack the Internet for its own PR purposes. Via Aceshowbiz: Ashton Kutcher has defended his decision to "pirate" the first 13 minutes of his new film "Killers" online, insisting internet piracy will soon be a thing of the past when movie executives figure out a way of cashing in on the idea. It is absolutely impossible to believe that Kutcher’s actions did not come with the approval of Lionsgate... and in fact, it’s easy to believe that this was something cooked up not by Kutcher but by Lionsgate PR people. Of course, this has recently become something of a standard way to promote a movie or TV show: release the first 8 or 10 or 15 minutes online, legitimately, free for anyone to watch on YouTube or on an official site for the project. But this takes the idea in a different direction: It appears to appropriate what Hollywood has been insisting forever is an illegal act. Shouldn’t Hollywood condemn Ashton Kutcher’s “piracy” of Killers? If the industry does not condemn this, should we take Hollywood seriously anymore when it complains about piracy? What does the MPAA have to say about this? Can Kutcher’s actions be taken as evidence that Hollywood is not as clueless about the Internet as it has seemed to be? And could Kutcher’s actions actually be used in a court of law, in any future piracy lawsuits, as proof that Hollywood is not, in fact, genuinely concerned about piracy? (If you have a suggestion for a QOTD, feel free to email me. Responses to this QOTD sent by email will be ignored; please post your responses here.) Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus |
posted:
Thu Jun 03 10, 11:05AM categories: movie buzz talent buzz talk amongst yourselves permalink 6 pre-Disqus comments Disqus comments tip jarshare
read more
Ashton Kutcher
Hollywood hates moviegoers Katherine Heigl Killers Lionsgate MPAA piracy qotd social media related· Polanski speaks (but doesn't apologize); sexist iPad ads?; Mr. Rogers is evil, says Fox News; more: leftover links · lingerie model relaces Megan Fox; horror films' distress calls; 'Sex and the City 3'?; more: leftover links · Roger Ebert hates 3D; is Sacha Baron Cohen worth $20 million?; Brits playing American; and more: leftover links · Mickey Rourke as Genghis Khan, Ridley Scott returns to 'Alien,' deliver us from Breck Eisner, more: leftover links · question of the day: ‘Killers’ not screening for critics; how long before nothing screens for critics? · new this week in U.S., Canadian, and U.K. theaters: ‘Jonah Hex,’ ‘Toy Story 3,’ ‘Killers,’ ‘MacGruber,’ more · wtf: Katherine Heigl’s ‘Killers’ moron is a “sweetie pie”? · Killers (review) · new this week in U.S., Canadian, and U.K. theaters: ‘Get Him to the Greek,’ ‘Splice,’ ‘Death at a Funeral,’ ‘The Brothers Bloom,’ more · trailer break: ‘Killers’ bloggyprevious post: Splice (review) next post: trailer break: ‘Centurion’ |









pre-Disqus comments
posted by JasonT (Thu Jun 03 10, 12:26PM)
Maybe it should only be illegal when its a good movie.
posted by Nate (Thu Jun 03 10, 1:32PM)
If it was, I'd love to see how studios try to defend themselves against it.
posted by JoshB (Thu Jun 03 10, 3:54PM)
From an interview with Alex Alvarez, founder of The Gnomon Workshop, which sells art training DVDs produced by industry veterans (Alvarez and several other Gnomon instructors worked on Avatar, for instance), and makes their content available via digital download for pay. I mention this because MaryAnn has stated that she believes people will pay for content if it's made available via digital download...
posted by Lisa (Fri Jun 04 10, 11:50AM)
does anybody care about this movie? Were people rushing to see it? And now look how many people are talking about it!
Oh wait ... only 4
posted by MaryAnn (Fri Jun 04 10, 12:05PM)
This isn't something I just made up. People pay for digital music. People pay for ebooks. Is there still piracy happening? I'm sure there is. But people *are already* paying for digital content when they're given the option to do so.
To be fair to me, I have said things like this many, many times, too: If creative people are not compensated for their work, they'll be forced to stop doing it, and only independently wealthy people or part-time amateurs will *able* to do creative work.
That can still be true while, at the same time, the industry overall can be not understanding the Internet and what it can do.
posted by Stuart (Fri Jun 04 10, 11:15PM)
Grow up, Hollywood, and get behind digital distribution. The more you dig your heels in, the worse it'll get.
What a bunch of whingers the big studios can be...