Piracy E-Mailer Incurs 'Hurt Locker' Producer's Wrath

We wrote last week about the mission Voltage Pictures is on to prosecute Bit Torrent users who have illegally downloaded The Hurt Locker. Now there's a strange update to the story. A reader of BoingBoing named Nicholas sent Hurt Locker producer Nicolas Chartier an e-mail denouncing his company's practice of trying to sue those who downloaded the film. Earlier this year, Chartier's e-mails negatively campaigning against Avatar for the Academy Awards got him barred from the event. While the reader's e-mail is not confrontational, really, he's still on the wrong side of the issue. Contrast that with Chartier, who's in the right, but is astonishingly brash. He's not doing himself or his cause any favors. Here's the exchange:

Dear Mr. Chartier, I have recently become aware of Voltage Pictures' intention to sue thousands of people who are suspected of having used BitTorrent to download films produced by your company. I wish to register my disagreement with these tactics, and would like you to know that as a result of these actions I am boycotting your films. The majority of the people you are suing were not seeking to make money from their downloads, and will be financially devastated by a lawsuit or settlement. While it is completely understandable that Voltage Pictures wishes to defend its intellectual property, this is an inhumane way of doing so. Until Voltage Pictures publicly states that it will not pursue lawsuits for downloading its films, I will not view, rent or buy any films produced wholly or in part by your company. I will urge my friends and family to take the same actions. I do not wish for the money I spend on entertainment to be used against otherwise good people. Thank you for your time.

And the response:

Hi Nicholas, please feel free to leave your house open every time you go out and please tell your family to do so, please invite people in the streets to come in and take things from you, not to make money out of it by reselling it but just to use it for themselves and help themselves. If you think it's normal they take my work for free, I'm sure you will give away all your furniture and possessions and your family will do the same. I can also send you my bank account information since apparently you work for free and your family too so since you have so much money you should give it away...I actually like to pay my employees, my family, my bank for their work and like to get paid for my work. I'm glad you're a moron who believes stealing is right. I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference. Until then, keep being stupid, you're doing that very well. And please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies, I actually like smart and more important HONEST people to watch my films. best regards, Nicolas Chartier
Voltage Pictures, LLC

Chartier should hire a personal assistant. I'm not sure he's using the strongest analogy, first of all (even if he's essentially correct), and his tone is just beyond the pale. The e-mailer makes a good point about people possibly being financially devastated by a lawsuit. You know how they could avoid that? Not downloading a movie illegally. If I walked into a grocery store and ate a pint of ice cream without paying for it, that's illegal. I don't own it until I pay the price the current owner insists upon. That's commerce; it's how the whole thing works. They set the price for their product, not me. Why would movies be any different? Because you can store it on your computer? Let's imagine they catch me eating the ice cream I've just stolen but I say, in my defense, that letting me eat this ice cream for free might encourage me to pay next time. There are three reasons why that's a bad argument: 1) I already ate the ice cream for free, meaning you've lost money twice because I didn't pay and now you can't sell it to someone else, 2) If I don't like it for free, I sure won't pay for it, and 3) If I got it free this time, why wouldn't I just try the same gambit again? I honestly can't wrap my head around people thinking music and movies are theirs to have for nothing. What irks me more is people who consider themselves hardcore movie fans who have cases full of stolen films. If you love movies so much, why not support the people who make them? The only defense anyone has in support of piracy is one of entitlement. However, you're not entitled. It's not public property unless the owners say it is, the way some musicians have chosen to give away albums online. But the artist/label or filmmaker/studio sets that price, not the user. The only gray area, to me, is that the punishment seems to not fit the crime. Really, this is akin to shoplifting or maybe even a step below. It's different that stealing a DVD off the shelves, because downloading doesn't actually take money out of the victim's hands twice. But it needn't be a 30-day prison term or thousands of dollars in fines. That's not how the system is supposed to work, either. I realize the penalties are steep to discourage the behavior, but should it cost more than a DUI? Probably not.

Comments

[RadialSkid]

The difference with your ice cream analogy, sir, is that you can't COPY ice cream. When a movie is downloaded, a copy is made, hence nothing is taken. If ice cream is eaten from the store, the store actually physically loses part of its stock.

The idea that downloading is "stealing" is predicated upon the blatantly false premise that every download is a sale lost. It's silly to think that everyone who downloaded a particular movie simply couldn't POSSIBLY live without it and would rush out, posthaste, to purchase said film if denied the opportunity to torrent it.

While I don't download films, I *do* download a lot of music from torrent, yet I would never stoop so low as to actually pay money to any organization as crooked as an RIAA-affiliated record label. Never underestimate the spirit of boycotters.

And honestly, guys like Nicholas make me want to do the same for films. Why should these snarky, arrogant producers get my money? What exactly is it that makes them ENTITLED to profit? Value is dictated by the market. If no one wants to pay for your product, get another job.

[Get The Big Picture]

They're entitled to the profit because they created it. Why does anyone believe art should be free? Where is that written? And when you don't pay for it, you're not just ripping off Nicholas Chartier but every grip, production assistant, driver, and technician. Or do those people also work for free?

Is it silly to think that every downloader would otherwise pay for the product? Perhaps, but not as corrosive as the belief that you can just take whatever you want because you have the means to do it. Again, the only argument for piracy is entitlement. You think you should be able to get your music for free because you believe all the labels are crooked. Yet you'd be thrown out of the park if you tried sneaking into a Major League Baseball game any time you wanted to go, and MLB is as corrupt as the day is long. And what would be the argument if you did: "I wanted to make sure it was a game I'd pay to see before I paid to see it"?

The ice cream analogy isn't really flawed; the store doesn't make money because you're not buying the product just as theaters don't make their cut if you don't buy a ticket for something you've watched at home and decided you didn't like enough to pay for it or just never get around to seeing it again. How could they get paid if you don't go? It may not be "taken" in the strictest sense of the word, but it is lost revenue all the same.

It's the same problem with songs. If you download those illegally, you're not just keeping the labels from getting their money, but the artists, the producers, and most importantly in a lot of cases, the songwriters, who only ever get paid for radio play or unit sales. Shouldn't the people who create the songs you want so badly benefit from that exchange, or is it just for you? They're just making these things so you can enjoy them at your leisure?

Perhaps you should reconfigure your last sentence from "If no one wants to pay for your product, get another job" to "If I don't want to pay for your product, I'll buy somebody else's." That, actually, is how the market dictates value, not by ripping people off because you convince yourself not paying for it actually puts you on some imaginary moral high ground. Because your example insinuates that nobody wants the product as well, which is clearly not happening here.

Also, "Never underestimate the spirit of boycotters" - you're not boycotting anything. You just don't pay for their products you use. That's not the same thing. A boycotter actually sacrifices that privilege.

[mdamien13]

Bravo, Colin. I agree with everything you've written here. This is one of the most logical arguments against piracy I've read, and I wish that more pirates would understand the affect that their actions have on the industry right now.

[nicksoapdish]

I rarely go to the movies. I rarely buy DVDs. I will often times watch movies at my friends house. He has a great home theater. Strangely, my friend, who buys DVDs doesn't require me to pay him money so he can send it to the people who made the movie. The same amount of money was spent on movies regardless of whether I saw the movie or not.
There are movies that i have seen, that have been downloaded, that have made me want to go out and buy the movie. Usually, they are movies that are small independent films which I would like to support. Also, there are some movie that I genuinely want to watch in the theaters. Movies that are cool to see on the big screen. Iron Man, Avatar, Inception. They all will probably be better if experienced at a theater, so I will go.

A downloaded film is a copy of the film. The same number of DVDs will be produced and will be available for sale. Nobody who is downloading movies is actually "taking" anything from anyone. It's the same as burning a copy of a friend's CD. It's not illegal to do that unless you sell it. If I go to my friends house, and he rips a DVD, and i take the copy from his computer and download it on to mine so I can watch it, it's no different than making a copy of a CD. Bittorrent is just a friend with a lot of movies.
I understand that many people do watch these movies instead of going to the theaters. I know that there is some money lost on the part of the movie industry because of this. I think that some people will get an opportunity to see a movie that wouldn't have before. There are some people who can truly not afford to buy DVDs or go to the theater. In that case, the movie industry isn't losing any money or sales either. I just don't think that giant companies going after individuals to teach them a lesson is a good thing. They will not be endearing themselves to anyone, and it will definitely not make me want to see their movies in the future.

[RadialSkid]

"They're entitled to the profit because they created it."

And? If I create something, does that mean I'm "entitled" to be paid for it, whether or not there's a market? You can lament change all day long, but when it occurs, it occurs. Period.

"Is it silly to think that every downloader would otherwise pay for the product? Perhaps, but not as corrosive as the belief that you can just take whatever you want because you have the means to do it."

Again, nothing is being taken. It's a zero sum game.

"Again, the only argument for piracy is entitlement. You think you should be able to get your music for free because you believe all the labels are crooked."

The major labels, yes. Hence I download as a form of civil disobedience. I didn't even start doing until the Napster fiasco, and if not for their ridiculous reaction to it, I probably never would have.

"Yet you'd be thrown out of the park if you tried sneaking into a Major League Baseball game any time you wanted to go, and MLB is as corrupt as the day is long."

I don't watch baseball, so the MLB doesn't get any of my money. Or the NBA, NFL, or any other sporting body.

"The ice cream analogy isn't really flawed; the store doesn't make money because you're not buying the product just as theaters don't make their cut if you don't buy a ticket for something you've watched at home and decided you didn't like enough to pay for it or just never get around to seeing it again. How could they get paid if you don't go? It may not be 'taken' in the strictest sense of the word, but it is lost revenue all the same."

The analogy is flawed: An actual loss of a physical piece of stock costs the store money, whereas your movie revenue loss is purely theoretical.

"It's the same problem with songs. If you download those illegally, you're not just keeping the labels from getting their money, but the artists, the producers, and most importantly in a lot of cases, the songwriters, who only ever get paid for radio play or unit sales."

The artists don't make money from the labels to start with....they make their money from touring. They're lucky if the labels give them a dollar an album. Most don't even earn 10 cents an album. Producers are as irrelevant of labels in the era of home recording and online distribution. Songwriters will earn their keep one way or another, just as long as they keep from the labels.

"Shouldn't the people who create the songs you want so badly benefit from that exchange, or is it just for you? They're just making these things so you can enjoy them at your leisure?"

Frankly, no, I don't feel they deserve money from me. Hence, my boycott of RIAA-affiliated material.

"Also, 'Never underestimate the spirit of boycotters' - you're not boycotting anything. You just don't pay for their products you use."

I've got an entire hard drive full of legally purchased INDEPENDENT music that disagrees with that assessment. I have no problem whatsoever paying for music....I just don't pay for the music produced by RIAA-affiliated labels.

[dailyrager]

an over-saturated market of bad product for decades in both music and film leads to a mass of people who feel "entitled" to take, or steal, whatever they can find on the net. Some might call it consumer retribution. It's also important to note, whether you believe it's right or wrong, a decent copy of the Dark Knight was online less than 24 hours after it's release and the film still went on to break several box office records. The big studios throw around all kinds of numbers but it's impossible to truly measure how much of a financial loss they are actually experiencing through piracy. The Hurt Locker, which I do own and consider one of the best films of last year, performed poorly at the box office due to it's perceived subject matter, which was always going to be a tough sell in this political climate and, I'm certain, had little or nothing to do with it's wide availability on the net.

The lesson Chartier should be taking away from this experience is how to correctly market a movie, something which has, obviously, completely evaded him. Instead of accepting his part of the responsibility for the weak box office numbers, he'd rather spin his wheels in the mud and waste his time playing the blame game. The litigation alone will, in all likelihood, cost him more than his company spent on promoting the film. Make no mistake, the big guys in town, behind closed doors, are giggling. Some are players, some are pretenders and time is the great equalizer.

[Get The Big Picture]

Nick -

It is illegal to copy a CD. Says so right on the back: "Unauthorized reproduction is a violation of applicable laws." So unless your friend gets written permission...

Also, your friend can't charge you admission to watch a movie at his house; that's an unauthorized exhibition.

Radial -

Yes, if you created anything you would be entitled to make money for it. You're familiar with capitalism, I take it? And here's where we're getting off track: You think because you don't want to pay, that means the market has decided that movies or music should be free. Sorry, but that's not true. There is still clearly a market, but a minority chooses to ignore it because they know they can get it for free.

The top ten pirated movies last year accounted for roughly 80 million downloads. I don't see how you can argue a "sum zero game." Even if only one in ten of those were people who decided not to see the movie after downloading it, that's still over $75 million. Off ten movies.

Switching to music...Producers are irrelevant? Ask an artist about that. I'm not certain what online distribution would have to do with creating a great record, but whatever. There's a reason producers get a cut of album sales. How else would Mutt Lange be loaded if not for songwriting royalties and producer credits? But he probably doesn't deserve any of it because he worked in the system all these years.

And it's great that you have the certitude to assume that the songwriters, who are mostly independent contractors, are somehow in on whatever RIAA conspiracy you're on about. They're lucky enough to get the gig, and it's a bit ironic that you think the scam is coming from the board rooms when you're just as guilty as siphoning money away from the people who create music.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total income for songwriters dropped by a third between 2003 and 2006. Now, assuming your first statement was true, you download a lot of music via the torrent services and that since you claim to have legally purchased non-RIAA music, that must mean you're only downloading the RIAA stuff. Still not a boycott, by the way, because you're still consuming. You're just robbing them because you insist on sidestepping the revenue model, not just for the labels, but also for the artists.

Incidentally, if your precious, pure, unsullied independents don't report sales to ASCAP or BMI and don't achieve radio play, there's no chance the writers get paid for that, either. None.

And once again, it comes back to a feeling of entitlement.

[RadialSkid]

"Yes, if you created anything you would be entitled to make money for it."

Wrong. No one is entitled to make money for producing art. We have the option to market our creations and make money, but there's no rule that somebody has to pay us money for it. I've published several pieces of fiction online, and by your logic, I should be demanding payment for them.

"You think because you don't want to pay, that means the market has decided that movies or music should be free. Sorry, but that's not true. There is still clearly a market, but a minority chooses to ignore it because they know they can get it for free."

Are you attempting to prove your point or mine? I am for peer to peer file sharing, as I agree with the *numerous* studies that have shown a link between it and increased album/ticket sales. While studios and labels constantly say they don't want to be stuck in a world where they're having to "compete with free," you've basically just admitted that they're already in that world, and yet somehow (despite 1/6th of the world population engaging in regular copyright infringement) someone is still paying them.

Everyone is so caught up on "should be" and they're ignoring "is." Peer to peer has revolutionized the way media is consumed. The genie cannot be put back in its bottle. It's basic economics: Supply goes up, price goes down. Supply goes to infinite, price gets pressured to zero. As a believer in the free market, I think the market should either adapt to this change (ie, find revenue streams other than selling copies of music) or die out.

I mean, let's face it: If the automobile were invented today, nobody would get to drive it, since buggy makers, horse breeders, blacksmiths, and whip makers would all band together and lobby Congress to outlaw the automobile, on the basis that it "destroys their livelihoods."

"The top ten pirated movies last year accounted for roughly 80 million downloads. I don't see how you can argue a 'sum zero game.' Even if only one in ten of those were people who decided not to see the movie after downloading it, that's still over $75 million. Off ten movies."

An impossible number to arrive at, since you have no idea how many of them would have paid to see the movie in the first place. Perhaps they simply wouldn't have watched it.

"Switching to music...Producers are irrelevant? Ask an artist about that."

Try asking Corey Smith. Made several million dollars last self-producing, self-releasing, and touring on his own as an independent musician. Jonathan Coulton is another example. Matthew Ebel is another. None of them needed producers.....that's still a label concept, which I'm arguing is outdated.

"And it's great that you have the certitude to assume that the songwriters, who are mostly independent contractors, are somehow in on whatever RIAA conspiracy you're on about. They're lucky enough to get the gig, and it's a bit ironic that you think the scam is coming from the board rooms when you're just as guilty as siphoning money away from the people who create music."

I don't know where you're pulling all of this from. Songwriters, like musicians (hopefully, they're the same - I have little use for songwriters who can't play music or musicians who don't write their songs) can make money with no label intervention. Sell a tune, make money, repeat.

"Now, assuming your first statement was true, you download a lot of music"

I never said I download "a lot" of music. Truth is, my interest in major label music is dwindling with every year....I only download the occasional album from torrent, the last one being about 3 months ago.

"Still not a boycott, by the way, because you're still consuming."

You seem to have the wrong definition of the word "boycott." I'm listening to some of their music, however they aren't getting my money.

And why shouldn't I? I've already established that I don't disagree with peer to peer on principle....am I supposed to just go without an album I like, just because a major label produced it, out of some false sense of morality? If I disagreed with the concept of peer to peer, as you do, then that would be a valid point. But I don't and it isn't.

You seem to have some concept that an unnecessary level of sacrifice is required for a boycott. If I can get the music without paying for it, how does that render the boycott void? The only way I can see this being the case is if one believes the studies I mentioned earlier, which have shown links between downloading and increased sales. You could argue, based on that, that I'm contributing to their popularity. Somehow, though, I doubt that you would make that argument, so what's the basis of yours?

"You're just robbing them because you insist on sidestepping the revenue model, not just for the labels, but also for the artists."

1. I'm not robbing them, since I wouldn't pay them even if completely denied other access to the music. If I couldn't download it, I wouldn't listen.
2. Artists make practically nothing from album sales. I've already pointed that out.

"Incidentally, if your precious, pure, unsullied independents don't report sales to ASCAP or BMI and don't achieve radio play, there's no chance the writers get paid for that, either. None."

So now we're pretending that song writers live only on royalties? That's cute.

"And once again, it comes back to a feeling of entitlement."

Yeah. The entitlement of an outdated industry with an ancient business model, which can't understand the laws of economics. "Stealing" an MP3 is literally as feasible as "stealing" air.