These two websites (cinematik and ADC) are offering torrents of MoC, Second Run, Bfi, Criterion, and many other DVDs for download.

They have over 8,000 members and are directly affecting the ability of small DVD labels to continue doing what they're doing.

Furthermore, their attitude absolutely stinks. They revel in the childish thrill of doing something illegal just because they can.

If any kindly Swedish forum members would like to grass up the names and addresses of the people behind the sites, I would like to offer a selection of MoC DVDs as a reward.

[The FBI closed down ADC last December but it's reappeared.]

I cannot stress how much this is affecting small DVD labels, and how much of our time it is taking to go after them.

Unfortunately, this might also work as an advertisement for their services, however.

I like to count on people's consciences.

Surely this must violate Swedish law!

Sweet sweet irony.....

ADC actually promotes the purchase of MoC DVDs.


As stated under every MoC dvd available on ADC, it is the only DVD-label that gets this treatment......comments again and again stress the quality of MoC in such a way that they must own at least one MoC DVD. I think you will surprised how much staunch followers got to know good DVD releasing labels through filesharing. Unsurprisingly one is talking right at this minute

I would like to see some arguments why this is affecting small labels (saying it twice doesn't make it so - It is clear however that it affects the big companies...and that was about time), Filesharing on this level also promotes the appreciation and eventual purchase of smaller labels (as explicitly stated above)....also not everyone who downloads a MoC DVD is a potential buyer of one....MoC and Bfi are focused on the UK (multi-region purchasers are still a minority) while a lot of downloaders are not....the behaviour of downloading cannot be directly transferred to a financial situation (these users tend to be young and broke....and maybe a bit cheap)....Have you ever considered the positive potential of the word of mouth that goes on in these communities?

What is better for you as a business: A person downloading 3 DVDs that eventually leads to the purchase of one title, or one that has no idea why he should bother to go into E-tailing, multi-region viewing because he has no idea what is available.

Some factual errors:

The "FBI" never closed down "ADC" (the swedish police seized servers of the ISP of the Pirate Bay, because it hosted Pirate Bay, in the process (as collateral damage) taking offline all the sites of the ISP...whether legal or 'illegal')

Filesharing at least at the level of ADC has nothing to do with this reveling in the childish thrill....it is about exchanging and getting to know good movies...

The most snatches (fully completed transactions) of a single MoC torrent is only 100 (which is a lot but again these cannot be directly be related to loss of sales...and relative if compared to that huge number of 8000 members...it is funeral parade of roses BTW)....

But most importantly: Peerpee....trust your product and have trust in the good conscience of people....watch out of MoC becoming yet another Metallica or MPAA follower (This is the first truly negative thing in my opinion that has come out of MoC, As MoC started out as a website "a community" in a certain sense, I expected a bit more from MoC).....filesharing has a conscience, and has developed beyond the meaningless "stealing" as it is so often portrayed, at least at the sites you are mentioning....

Utter bullshit, AZAI. Utter, utter bullshit.


Oh -- THANKS! Thanks for that. That's so kind! Provide the film to people for free, illegally, then advertise our website. Again, many thanks for that.

You're so deluded you lot! Get it into your thick heads, *you don't have the right to give away someone else's work*.


See above. You don't have the rights. Don't delude yourself.


Bollocks. You're digging a big hole for yourself "these users tend to be young and broke".


There's no argument here --- at all. Downloading of our product is not permitted. End of story.


Most importantly, AZAI, you're totally wrong, defending a totally illegal practice.

Don't try and play the "I thought MoC were all hippies" line. We are hippies, but hippies don't steal.

Screw you, thief!

I'm completely with Peerpee - and not because of instinctive solidarity with a fellow DVD producer, but because I can spot disingenuous bollocks when I see it.

What's most interesting is that AZAI is using more or less exactly the same arguments put forward by someone who was caught circulating complete Quay Brothers films online. As the producer of their new DVD, I naturally asked him to take them down. He refused, because in his bizarre parallel universe he was "helping" the Quays by getting their films more widely seen, and I was representing an evil corporate monolith trying to suppress true art, or something like that. (Fortunately, his ISP agreed with me, and removed the offending material within two hours of my complaint).

I was particularly incensed by this because anyone who's watched the introduction on the new DVD set will know that the Quays aren't exactly rolling in cash, and indeed commissions have more or less dried up in recent years now that the BFI no longer funds films and Channel Four is more interested in Big Brother and programmes showcasing Gordon Ramsay swearing. It took them long enough to persuade anyone to take the considerable commercial risk of distributing their work on DVD in their adopted country in the first place, and they need this kind of piracy like they need a hole in the head.

Not least because there's no excuse for it - anyone who genuinely wants to help promote their work has only to link to their US agent's website, where you can watch, perfectly legally, a showreel including clips from many of the shorts. It's a Flash site, so I can't give a direct link, but just click on 'Directors' and scroll down to 'The Quay Brothers'. There's also tons of background material available on Screenonline - with rather more free and legal video clips (and a few complete shorts) accessible by people based in UK educational establishments (i.e. many of these "young, broke students").

And if you like what you see, you can buy the DVD - and royalties will be going directly to Koninck, the Quays' own production company. So in the most literal possible sense, if you rip off this DVD, you're ripping off the filmmakers - and no amount of semantic quibbling will get around that.

AZAI, you really have no idea what is involved here. Licencing these films, creating new subtitles, creating the booklets, artwork, DVD menus, paying royalties, etc. costs tens of thousands of pounds. Months of sweat and money.

You may think that we sell millions of copies of each disc but WE DO NOT. We sell a lot less than you would think, and filesharing our work does us absolutely no good whatsoever. Furthermore, it is NOT upto you or these websites to decide what is best for us. Please remember that.

I take the bashing....disappointed that a reasonable discussion is out of the question (calling everything bullshit and bollocks, which it isn't, does not convince me of other things...at least Michael made the effort..thanks for that)

I'm aware of the efforts involved in the production of DVDs, and am perfectly aware that you don't sell thousands of copies....

But I also think that filesharing is here to stay, and it is my opinion that it has a lot of positive potential...

Lastly I spend all the money I can spend on dvds....but I want to see more films than I can afford as a student, I need to see more films I can afford for my future career. Videostores don't have them, the cinemas here do not play them......I have the right to see them....Wanting to see culture and paying as much as I can to support them, does not make me a FUCKING thief....

When I was a student I had to pay for everything I saw. I did not have the ability to steal something online and I did not steal from shops.

You say that you "have the right to see them"? The "right" to steal? --- Your logic is severely twisted.

I'm afraid it does make you a thief if you download MoC discs from those sites. Don't deny it.

Ridiculous quote of the day.

Hey Azai, have you ever heard of RENTING!!! You borrow the movie for a few days and for only few bucks/pounds. Sounds fare to me.

Come on AZAI, downloading technically is theft. Accusing MoC exporting their product of being commensurate to illegal downloading is not even a logical argument. I'm a student as well, and I can find just about everything I need in the better rental places. Can't say I've never been tempted to download, but if these sites put the little indies under, there isn't going to be anything worth downloading in the first place.

Good luck in getting these sites shut down.

I admit, I have downloaded bootlegs of films not abailable on DVD in the past, and most video shops in Australia have not had any decent foreign releases - even on VHS - until recently (thanks to Madman and co) but I for one support The Masters of Cinema as much as I can. Giving them my money may not help much, but as long as I purchase their DVDs, it keeps the hope alive that they will continue to produce the product they have become famous for in the DVD community.

It really is a shame that there are people out there who are not willing to support companies like Eureka/MoC.

Can't you appreciate the time, money and effort that goes into creating these DVDs that you just 'pinch' off the shelves of the internet?
Anyway, doesn't the compressed pixelation piss you off in the downloaded films?

I'd much rather have an empty wallet, and get to fully enjoy the restoration work put into these films, than suffer through bad compression... and then there's the booklets...

If you have to download movies, why not stick to Hollywood productions!? Or Paris Hilton movies...

The fact that we are able to see the films from MoC and Criterion, in such glorious restored versions, would make me feel guilty if I didn't contribute to their work by purchasing every release I can.


Exactly.....

If you're a student you can usually borrow films from your school's library or film center (if they have a film studies program), or at least watch them in a special viewing area. Hell, sometimes you can even make suggestions for future acquisitions. Next time you're near the place that handles that kind of thing, ask them about getting some of the MoC discs. My school has quite a few of them, and we're looking to get more (CEAS needs the Naruse set!).

I think the real irony is that MoC went out of their way to make a really unobtrusive message about the consequences of piracy(which comes at the end of the feature), and now they're being compared to the MPAA. Give me a break.

AZAI, it's difficult to have a "reasonable" discussion about this topic for two reasons:

1.) It's plainly illegal. There's no getting around that fact, and I'm someone who's fileshared for my (un)fair share of CDs. There's no way that anyone can reasonably justify using filesharing to circumvent the legal marketplace. Rationalize? Yes, but that's not the same thing.

2.) MoC -- even more than slightly older companies like Criterion, BFI, and other indie labels -- probably operates on a razor-thin budget. I wouldn't expect Nick to react any other way than he did. We're talking about his livelihood here, not just his passion.

Is filesharing here to stay? Of course. But its mere existence does not mean that we consumers can all take a moral holiday.

I can understand, having moved from the sticks to Manhattan, that not all rental shops are great. (And far, far fewer stock any R2 titles, even the artsier stores and even by request.) Nicheflix also caved, and multiregion renting was one of its sole reasons to exist alongside other rental services. So I'm sympathetic to the idea of not being able to get ones hands on it cheaply (i.e. at a rental rate), since importing is naturally more costly than most domestic purchasing, especially given the weak power of the dollar.

The end result is that while I own quite a few MoC titles, I still have seen/owned less than I'd like to. I'm assuming I'll have years to see what I want before rights issues start forcing things out of print. But that doesn't particularly bother me, there's plenty to see in the meantime. And more to the point, since peerpee asked that the DVDs not be pirated/shared, that's really the end of the discussion. There's no ethics argument about The Man that gets around the moral logistics of a small businessowner requesting how their property be treated.

You can download any of my short films absolutely for free. That would be a lovely instance where filesharing and sites like YouTube do offer me more exposure, because I'm not selling them anyway (until I end up directing My-Super Ex-Girlfriend 2--then they'll be extras tossed onto the overpriced Deluxe Edition release!) But I have little to no cost sunk into production, nor do I have the kind of quality where I could even begin to think of charging money for my product. In the case of carefully restored and lovingly treated films from actually talented directors, most considered masterworks by consensus, I think it's not unfair to request legit compensation.

(Although I would really love to see indie labels start finding some sort of legitimate downloading service they could support. I am not totally aware of the cost/benefits/security of such services that are just starting to gain some foothold here in the States in the past year or two, but it seems like those would be ideal ways to offer legitimate and slightly cheaper alternatives to piracy.)

Jesus, I'm gonna regret this in the morning... but I think AZAI's got more on his side than anyone's giving him credit for.


This is true. There's no possible way that I could dispute the fact that filesharing is illegal. However, so is speeding and partaking in the occasional marijuana, and I can't see anyone here taking great pains to tear someone a new asshole for those offenses. And please don't tell me that those aren't in the same boat -- disregard any personal connection to the results of the crime (that'll be in the next point) -- as far as the legal system is concerned, the severity of the crime and the ability to quash it are pretty much even across the board for those three.


Nick, that all being said, please understand that I am entirely empathetic to your plea. That is the one part of AZAI's argument that I completely disagree with. I do believe there is positive potential to be found in filesharing in the future, but at the current point in time, your reaction to these sites is entirely reasonable and expected. Had I been using these torrents and come on the forum to find your response, I would have gladly stopped.

But you found some iffy ground on trying to get us to help do your dirty work. I'll admit, my first reaction to your post was "Damn, I wish I lived in Sweden so I could try and get in on that sweet MoC bribe action." Then I realized what exactly that would entail. And as an underground artist (not that I'm equating what these sites are doing with artistry, because I absolutely am not), particularly an underground artist who has some deep-seated issues with certain creative barriers created by the cult of the copywritten, I tend at times to put myself in situations where I would essentially be on the same side as these torrents. And the thought of people turning my name over for payment sickens me way deep down in that fucked up sense of morals I keep hidden away. Of course, it is a somewhat different story if there's an artistic purpose involved, but try telling that to Dramatists or Samuel French or, on a less corporate level, the Samuel Beckett estate. They certainly wouldn't go for it, and they are, in essence, you in this situation, Nick.

And what's all this bandying about of the dreaded 'r' word? Are we going to stick to legal rights or personal rights, because I know I sure as hell don't consider what the U.S. government tells me is and is not my right the end-all on the subject. I can honestly say that I have never contributed to the filesharing of an MoC disc. Can I honestly say that it's entirely out of the question that I would have? No, I can and will not. I hope you don't hold that against me personally Nick, because, like AZAI, I'm not in it to get away with things or to rip off 'the man'. There's a level of financial feasibility that I can't ignore, and "renting" a film via fileshare is a seemingly victimless (I said seemingly!) way do to that. This one's got a face now, and out of respect for you and your request (but certainly not any sense of legality or 'rights'), you have my word that MoC filesharing will not cross this mind.

But there is room for reasonable discussion here (perhaps not from Nick, and understandably so), and it's disheartening how quickly it's being shot down.

-Toilet Dcuk

EDIT: I wanted to also second davebert's response -- didn't have a chance to see it before mine went up, but it deserves a 'here, here'.

How is dowloading a ripped off DVD "renting"?

I knew that would be the one word that would get leapt on. From my perspective as a consumer (I'm using the word loosely, okay?), it serves the same purpose -- to view a film that I have not seen or need to see again for a timely, temporary purpose. (EDIT: And is not readily available or within my financial means.) I don't download to garner a collection.

-Toilet Dcuk

I think this was said in one form or another, but it deserves repeating: the people who are downloading rips of MoC films aren't people who would ever buy an MoC disc. First of all you're getting an inferior quality image, compressed and not looking optimal. Then, you're not getting the art and the booklet. If you really wanted to have a copy of the film there's simply no other option but to buy the release (unless we open up the can of worms that is one-to-one DVD burning). Ok, so it's wrong that they're using the MoC name and source material for the rip. But a compressed file of a film is simply no substitute for the real package. It's like stealing a cheap imitation of a fine product.

But I think there are significant differences between copyright infringement and marijuana use or, depending on how fast we're talking about, occasionally breaking the speed limit. The latter two are basically "victimless" crimes, whereas the former deprives copyright holders of revenue. It is ultimately up to the copyright holder to make the material in question available for filesharing. By definition, nobody else has that right.

Of course, I'm sympathetic to your perspective as an underground artist, and as someone who works in education, I certainly wish that "fair use" could be more broadly defined. But as someone who also produces his own writing, I feel very strongly that the individual or organization that owns a particular idea or form of expression (music, writing, film, etc.) should have the right to decide the means by which consumers can access it.

EDIT: Just noticed this gem from Davebert's post:


A much more to-the-point statement than what I wrote above. The only thing I'd add is that the purpose of copyright is to provide equal protection to individuals, small organizations, and large (yes, faceless) corporations. It's a case of -- to paraphrase Jefferson -- protecting nine unethical rights holders in order to protect one ethical rights holder.

Was just talking about this with some professor friends tonight. It's hard for us to see where the cut-off point of sharing is. Sorry. Maybe our heads too, various advanced degrees from high-falutin universities notwithstanding, are too thick for the task at hand.

Questions for Mr peerpee - just because I'm curious.

1. Is my local video store giving away someone else's work when I rent a DVD from them? [In fact, even worse, aren't they profiting from someone else's work?]
2. May I ethically play my copy of an MoC disc for my friends when they visit? [Maybe I should, like the video stores in question 1, if their work is deemed ethical, charge my friends to view my disc.]
3. May I ethically loan my disc to my friends for, say, three weeks? I.e., if the answer to question 2 is "yes", then, must I be present when my friends watch the disc? [You probably see where this is going.] And, is there a limit to the number of people I can show it to?
4. May a library ethically loan out its copy of a DVD to hundreds of people?
5. May a faculty member ethically leave his or her personal copy of an MoC DVD on reserve in a library for 120 students to watch?
6. May he or she ethically screen an MoC DVD in a class.

I'm sure you've heard these questions many times before. I'm not a lawyer (obviously) and I don't have an axe to grind. Just curious in a complicated world. I don't download movies.* [I've never seen a high quality download and have enough money to make 6 or 8 orders from amazon.co.uk each year - see Denti Alligator's post above.] If I were to manufacture a disc, I'd want everyone to buy it. But I also know for a fact that Criterion gets a handful of sales of In the Mood for Love each year they would not otherwise've got because some faculty member makes his large lecture class watch the movie. Maybe Criterion'd rather not have those sales. I don't know.

*I wonder if you know about an American company I just heard about called CDigiX, which is making films and videos, including DVD-to-analog-back-to-digitally-encoded downloads of DVDs and tapes, available for download to university students. Apparently their client list includes University of Colorado, UCLA, and Yale.

As a fellow DVD label I feel I have to write to support Nick in his actions against cinematik/ADC. Though thankfully we don't appear to be as extensively torrented (?) as MOC are.

Azai - you may well feel that there is some legitimacy to your 'if one person buys an MOC DVD due to their d/load ' argument. However this is not backed up by the actions of those people who maintain Cinematik. Their response to Nick's posting on their forum was to reply in a fairly offensive, sarcastic, 'fcuk you dude' manner and to bar him from the forum. Hardly the actions of people who are trying to promote MOC.

You say that the most snatched single MOC torrent 'only' totals 100 and cannot be directly related to a loss of sales. I'll agree that making projections between d/loaded torrents and lost sales is complex. Yet to people such as myself and Nick that IS 100 potential lost sales. On the margins that ourselves and MOC are working on those 100 potential lost sales are easily the difference between breaking even and making a loss on a release. Which does have serious long term implications as to whether we can continue to sustain our respective businesses and will impact on the range of titles we can release. Ourselves and MOC work on a long tail model and 10 sales here and 10 sales there across our respective catalogues can make a huge difference to us over the long term but equally 10 downloaded torrents of this title and 10 of that title can have a negative impact.

I'm afraid I also struggle to find sympathy with the 'oh i'm just a poor student' argument. I presume that you are at college to better yourself and to increase your earning potential when you graduate? Hopefully it will allow you more freedom in what you choose to do with your life? So when you do get that great job or start your own company how are you going to feel when someone starts taking the end result of that great education you have worked so hard for and rips it (and you) off?

None of us are doing this for the money (if that was the case I'd be posting on a Universal forum) but we are trying to make ourselves some sort of living by doing what we love. To have someone threaten that just because they can or because they feel they have 'the right' makes my blood boil. Maybe if you knew just how much hard work goes into selling just 100 copies of a Naruse box set you wouldn't be quite so eager to download? (and breathe out....)

I'm always interested in using whatever new channels are available to promote and sell our titles and have been investigating as to whether there is an opportunity to use P2P to do so to those people who do want to support small labels such as ourselves but at the moment it really isn't viable. If someone was clever and responsible enough to come to me and say 'I think I can make this work for you and us and noone loses out' then I would happily talk to them.

This one will run and run....

These are all legal. Nick is getting understandably and justifiably pissed off with illegal action.


Why on earth would they not want those sales? What's the problem?

I'm just about to return a copy of Spione to the university library. Last week, I caught up with Asphalt by the same means. Both were terrific, and I applaud MoC for their work. For the record, I own about a dozen of their other titles. I cannot see a single issue related to ethics that needs to be explored in this manner here.