 | Energy and the Environment with the API | The Oil Drum | Another 100 billion barrels of oil found in Iraq? |  |
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Where ideas are concerned, America can be counted on to do one of two things: take a good idea and run it completely into the ground, or take a bad idea and run it completely into the ground.”
—George Carlin
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Posting it on those sites would consitute a MAJOR copyright violation.
Remember, these guys went all over the world and spent a tone of cash to make the film. You think it got made for free? Geez louise dude, get a clue.
You can count yourself as an unappreciatie ass with no understanding of how energy, money, or pretty much of anything in the real world works by encouraging such behavior.
My guess is you're the type to expect a plant to grow even when you rob it of sunlight and water.
There's a contradiction here, Chimp.
On the one hand, we have a tradition of copyright and intellectual property rights. We feel that people should be rewarded for producing articles, books, movies, works of art.
On the other hand, it is vitally important that the word get out about global warming and peak oil. Also, that detailed information be available about solutions and technologies to alleviate the problems.
With the Web we have a situation that has never existed before. Marginal distribution cost is basically zero. It costs no more to distribute 1,000,000 copies over the Web than it does to distribute 10 copies. It's foolish not to take advantage of the Web.
Some ideas:
Many of these strategies are being employed right now. I personally would like to see the works of H.T. Odum and some of the permaculturalists put online.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Bart,
Don't pull my chain. There is no contradiction here.
In this case, that is all a bunch of bullshit. If you want a film like this to be produced using the methods you detailed above, it will never and I do mean NEVER get produced.
If somebody can afford access to the web they can afford to freakin buy a copy of the DVD. ONce there's a distributor here in the US the cost will be in the $25 range.
You can't expect a plant to grow without a flow of sunlight and water. You can't expect a film to get produced without a flow of capital.
Please, sweet Jesus please, I hope this is the last time I hear somebody advise "go begging from some rich person or the government" which is essentially what your advice is when you say they should get a wealthy patron or the public to finance it ala the public broadcasting system.
Come on dude. You've been around the block a few times. You should know that if somebody is going to wait around for a rich person or the gov to fund something like this it ain't gonna get funded. So the producers slap a pricetag on it and sell it.
I will never understand why people have such a problem with this. I'm sure you did not work for free during your working years did you?
Chimp: I'm sure you did not work for free during your working years did you?
Actually I did work for free on many occasions. It's a great way to enter a new field, to make connections, to do something interesting and worthwhile.
At other times I concentrated on making money and acquiring financial independence. There is a time and a place for everything.
If you want to operate in the for-profit sphere, Chimp, that is absolutely fine. You are young? You may see things differently as the years go by.
Much worthwhile work is done by non-profits, volunteers, government grants, etc. I could go on and on about the various groups I've seen at work or been involved with.
Some of the most exciting opportunities will be to develop new forms and institutions, so that people who are doing good work can earn a living.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
The operative word here is "occassions." As in it was not the norm.
Not sure why you're objecting to the filmmakers getting A) reimbursed for the considerable capital they layed out and B) actually make some profit from it by simply having people pay for the freakin DVD.
The proposals you made in your previous post for alternatative forms of financing are all well and good as generalities but they are not practical in this case. In this case, expecting the filmmakers to finance it that way means either A) it doesn't get produced or B) they go into debt and become paupers.
This was an absolutely breaktaking movie and I am sure it cost big bucks to produce. I can be rented, of course, and it costs nothing extra if you belong to something like Netflix. And let's just say these filmakers were in a position to make it "for free". Well, it can't be done, even if there were no salaries. And besides, even if this were a nonprofit, we would want to reimburse them to encourage more good efforts in the future.
To ask that this movie be free is criminal, in my opinion. It was an absolutely beautiful and compelling film.
This is a documentary and does not have a big name like Al Gore behind it. It will mostly be shown to groups of people who are into alternative energy and other issues such as the murderous behavior of the likes of Shell in Nigeria. As such, it will be a fringe film and will not make very much money, if any.
I wish this were not the case and the film would make millions so that the producers and filmakers could continue to put out similar films in the future.
But people want this to be free? Jeeesh.
Right, I'm not objecting to filmmakers getting money for their work -- not at all. More power to them!
In fact, I would say that one of the most important things we can do as individuals is to support these small entrepeneurs. I try to publicize documentaries, films, books, whatever people are doing.
I know how hard it is, though, to earn a living this way, having worked for small newspapers and written for a living. I'm pointing out some ways that might smooth the way for people.
Bart
EB
Bart,
Yes, but one of your ways - web based distribution for free - means they *won't* get paid for all practical intents and purposes.
The other ways, which amounted to A) getting a wealthy patron to sponsor or B) getting the government to pay for it are equally problematic.
I'm most familiar with the economics of writing, so let me mention some things.
Most writers don't make money. At one point, successful published writers on average earned less than the minimum wage. Some writers are able to make a living from speakers fees - the books may not bring in any money, but the lecture circuit can pay. Trying to get published through a publisher is a HUGE hassle - time-consuming, emotionally draining, etc. This is especially true for writing that is not considered commercial.
The overwhelming percentage of a book's price goes to production, distribution and the overhead of the publisher. Very little gets to the author. As I said before, most writers are not in it for the money -- there are much easier ways to earn money. Writers want recognition, to get their message across.
You can self-publish on the Web instantaneously, for almost no money at all. Therefore, many writers can get 90% of the benefits of writing for 10% of the hassle.
As writers get more of a reputation, they can get better deals and start earning money. Even successful writers, though, can put things on the web that will enhance their reputation but not cost them any money. For example, some writers post preliminary versions of articles or books, or ephemera that they can't market. One great opportunity is to post the text of out-of-print books.
Government support? Right now, many wonderful reports and presentations are government sponsored, either written by government employees or contracted out. When the Bush Administration leaves office, we can expect a greater openness to subject matter. In the 30s, the WPA sponsored some extraordinary works of art, reports, guidebooks, etc.
Patrons. This is happening right now, though it is not publicized. There are some very wealthy people who are concerned about energy issues and want to make a contribution. Yes, of course there are problems. But it is a great opportunity for people and groups who are able to deal with them.
Basically, I'm saying ... let's use creative thinking and not stay fixated on the old inefficent ways of doing things. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
Bart
EB
What I meant by
was to calculate the revenue the film will make by selling DVDs and whatever other sales channels they're using over the next X years. Then ask the green celebs who have gobs of cash lying around to pay that amount to the film makers so they release the extremely important documentary to the public today... not after tshtf.
We now live in a world where we can disseminate knowledge instantly. Although I have not yet seen it, A Crude Awakening sounds like the perfect tool to get the uneducated educated on PO.
I supposse it could happen although I doubt it as the film is so scary and depressing I'm not sure what green celeb would want to do that. But it's not completely out of the question I suppose. If and when that does happen then feel free to download it for free! But until then, either pay the money to get it through net flix or through a retailer as it becomes available in your neck of the woods.
All very true in regards to book publishing. Completely irrelevant to the production of the Peak Oil documentary we have been discussing.
Most writers don't have to fly from Europe to D.C. to interview Bartlett, then to CA to interview Goodstein, then to Baku, then to Texas, then to Saudi Arabia, etc as the producers of CRUDE did. You can publish on the web for next to nothing. You need money and ALOT of it to produce a film like "A Crude Awakening."
As far as the following bit, it seems you are processing the arc of current events through your ideals/hopes*, not through a realistic appraisal of where things are heading:
Within a few years of the Bush admin leaving office, we can expect the federal government to have completely collapsed due to the effects of Peak Oil and nultiple other emerging catastophres.
That's if we don't get a full blown Nazi in office that makes Bush look like mild by comparison, as Kunstler pointed out in EOS.
Some will say "but we may get a Roosevelt. . ." Sweet Jesus that might be even worse if you follow things out to their logical conclusions. Roosevelt launched a war against Japan over the oil deposits in the south china sea that he provoked before his successor (Truman) initiated a regional nuclear holocaust at a time when the world's nuclear arsenal was 1/1000th what it is now.
I will concede (and I do hope) that if the real problems do not manifest until 2012 or 2016 then if Barack becomes the prez in 2008 there could be a 4-to-8 year period where things improve a bit or at least slow down their current (rapidly accelerating) descent into darkness.
*"not that there's anything wrong with that"
You mean, the Japanese who'd been murdering civilians by the tens of thousands in Nanking for years before the US embargoes?
The Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor in an attempt to take over the embargoed oil, rather than just pull out of China?
I think someone's been reading too much Howard Zinn.
I think somebody's been drinking too much Kool-Aid.
We did not go into World War II to save the Chinese any more than we went into Iraq to save the Iraqis.
And fyi, I've read "The RApe of Nanking" from cover to cover so I am well acquainted (intellecutally) with the horror that took place there. If I recall correctly, one of the "good guys" in the situation was a Nazi general who wrote to Hitler asking for Germany to intervene as the situation was so horrific. For those who have not read the book, that should give you some idea how bad it was.
No, we went into WWII because we were attacked by the Japanese (it was the event which deflated the forces which wanted the US to ally with the Axis). We embargoed the Japanese because of things like Nanking.
I think somebody is one generation too far removed from the ones who actually lived through the Great Depression and then fought that war. You're getting it through revisionist interpreters, but they were my parents, aunts and uncles.
The amount of money required to do documentary film, and as I haven't seen this one yet to see what its "production value" is isn't small.
Insurance. Do you have any idea of what an insurance package costs for film production. Its specialty, google video/film insurance and see how many hits you get. Then see the price is dependent on many factors, but I can tell you, its not cheap for the lowest fee's.
Travel cost, and going country to country with film/video equipment. This is one big headache, and it can be expensive when you have to declare the equipment. You have to have special forms, and payments. Insurance for production gear. LOL, talk about high dollar. Around FIFTEEN/TWENTY PERCENT a year of the cost.
Clearance rights. No production house is going to distribute this work until its been gone over with a fine tooth comb for possible copyright/trademark infringement, all contracts are correct, and on and on. That cost is very high.
Production costs. Without seeing it I couldn't guess, but if they travel, and bought footage (aerial etc) its got a bunch of dollars involved.
Then lets talk POST PRODUCTION. Music rights, and the cost of editing. Cheapest online you might negotiate is a nice PC based final cut, or similar Windows system. 75 bucks an hour, and I doubt that, no decent editor will work for that rate with his gear. Avid production in a production house with a great rate,.. 350 an hour. One hour of finished editing depends on the amount of footage shot. 100 hours easy.
I wish it was so easy to get people to pay you, thats not easy. Everyone today because they can buy a video camera and they WATCH tv, think they know how to do TV. Far from it, and the people jumping into the business like that are hurting it greatly. From many directions, but that is another story, but its part of all production these days. I just finished working on a reality tv show where the field producers were in their twenties. The sound man who worked for them the day before I started told me what to expect. He was right. They didn't even understand basic production terms, and really how to shoot a show. Had the same experience on "daddy's little girl". The lowest dollar amount and "fix it in post" is the rule of the day for far to many productions. Why all that reality crap is on. I see offers for the jobs on those crews. The ability to get a "credit" in exchange for slave wages in many cases. I have plenty of credits, my rate or I don't roll.
TV/film production is very specialized and expensive.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
Chimp: "we can expect the federal government to have completely collapsed due to the effects of Peak Oil and multiple other emerging catastophes."
That's a slightly bigger topic than the economics of book and film distribution! More than I can deal with in 200 words.
As for documentaries, there's been a technological revolution with digital cameras, digital editing, DVDs and the web. Compared to 20 years ago, the opportunities are staggering, leading to independent documentaries like those of Michael Moore and Who Killed the Electric Car? that bypass the traditional commercial process. At another scale, Global Public Media and Peak Moment can produce informative interviews and post them on the Web. And at yet another scale, there are the homespun efforts one sees on YouTube.
It's true that if you fly around the world to make a documentary and insist on expensive special effects, your costs will be higher and your financial options fewer. It all depends upon what you want to do.
All rather amazing to someone who started working on newspapers when the hot-lead Linotype machine prevailed.
Bart,
Everything you mention is still paid for. The market is not designed that way for the majority. Their are actual classes you can take to learn to request money from sources to do documentaries. Guess how many people ask each year. The classes are to "help" you. feedback loop, heterodyne alert.
Carpentry tools have been around for ages too, longer than Tv tools. How many people are able to be good carpenters.
That in a nutshell is what I now face each day when talking to clients. Access to tools is not the same as having the knowledge of how they work and all the tricks you can do with them.
Ever seen a big tv production truck or a those semi's with all that gear. I can walk you through each one of those and tell you what each thing does. Know what an onkybonk is, how bout a duckbill, can't say I need a beaver board anymore, or, bring me the dykes. Really. (normal "tools" on a set)
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
PrisonerX: "Access to tools is not the same as having the knowledge of how they work and all the tricks you can do with them."
You said it. The new tools offer possibilities, they don't guarantee results.
Here's the good news: knowlege is power. These days if you have the skills, it is much easier to get your ideas executed and distributed.
More good news: grassroots groups often have more talent than money. Granted that professionals like you are rare, but you know what? Many documentaries that need to be done do not require high production values.
It's the same with writing. Some of the articles I read on the Web make me squirm with frustration -- what a difference it would make if people knew how to write and edit. People who learn the skills could be much more effective.
But at least the information is getting published, and a few people typing away on discussion boards will eventually move on to quality writing.
Those people who have the skills are in a much better position than before.
I disagree with this statement.
"Many documentaries that need to be done do not require high production values."
Need is not specific. Yes images are powerful and just showing them can get a reaction. However take those images and use the knowledge of motivation, manipulation, from camera angles, position, and more, then an even more powerful video can be built.
Gestalt
I teach or used to at Rockport's TV film school, that just closed after a long run. David sold out for money and wishes to take his young wife and sailboat and do what David likes to do.
The still photography part though is still running I hear.
I;ve seen good work from amateurs I've helped many. Though remember the discussion is about copyright infringement and making money. Its the Copyright owners choice, not the publics.
Also, I bet you a dollar to a donut that many of the documentaries etc done by amateurs have beacoup problems that would keep them off the air. If they made money lawsuits coming out their rear end for images, trademarks, copyright infringement etc.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
I have a huge library (kids call it my doomers DVD library)
most of which I saw for FREE on the internet first. If they had substance I got right online and ordered it, even though often they cost two or three times the average DVD.
I am certain that the dozens of people I have loaned out to would not have seen them any other way. Several people have told me they bought their own to show to people.
IMO this "word of mouth" is the best possible way for these kinds of productions to get out there.
BTW all must see "The Century of the Self" best docu. ever.
Bart, I cordially say, "don't get greedy!" IMHO the best imaginable pro bono PO education is available right now, on this site. I am constantly pleasantly amazed at the quality of contributions by WT, R Squared, Khebab, Leanan and others. These folks could all get richly compensated elsewhere for the time and effort they expend here, and I am very grateful for their generosity.
Oh, and JHK, Matt Savinar, and Dmitry Orlof have all been very generous with their public access writing as well.
It's not unheard of for films like this - meant to educate and encourage political action - to be distributed free. The John Kerry movie, Going Upriver, was put online for free download at the same time it came out DVD and in theaters.