Let’s say there’s a movie I really want to see, yet for whatever reason do not want to contribute to the movie’s monetary gains.
If I do not see it in the theater, nor purchase the DVD, I figure I’m good - I didn’t give them a dime. But if I borrow it from the Library, does that TECHNICALLY still hold true? Would the movie somehow get a royalty or something based on how many times a DVD (or book for that matter) is borrowed?
I know you’re probably rolling your eyes, but I seriously want to know and I have no idea how libraries work stuff like that.
I’m sorry I don’t have a more complete picture, but I think the answer is becoming “yes.” “Educational” sales of movies used to be a rather lucrative revenue stream especially for smaller films or documentaries, because libraries/universities would pay several hundred dollars for a DVD or VHS copy, on the theory that many hundreds of people would watch and it wasn’t worth anyone’s time to deal with royalty calculations, so better to pay a big lump up front. This was nice for, say, independent filmmakers, because these sales really added up. Under this model, taking a movie out of the library didn’t contribute any further to the bottom line of a film (your original question)–the money was already spent.
Now that libraries are moving towards a streaming model for movies, I believe the payment system is moving in the same direction–the libraries/universities are paying royalties based on number of views/streams. So you may well be aiding the filmmakers by borrowing a film–even if only in a small increment.
As far as books, I know even less so wouldn’t want to speculate.
If there’s a film you want to see or a book you want to read, why not buy it secondhand? It is legal and does not help the original artist, even though as a filmmaker it pains me to give this advice.
What kind of material are we talking about here where you are so reluctant to help the creator monetarily?
I’m not aware of libraries that use number of borrowings to calculate royalties in the U.S. Other countries do so. There are some limitations on the number of times an ebook can be borrowed. IIRC, a new copy has to be purchased after 26 borrowings because that was calculated to be the average lifespan of a hardcopy.
That’s much less of a burden on libraries, whose IT systems are often fairly primitive. A trigger to repurchase is obviously easier than a constant stream of micropayments.
As TSBG said, a used copy is perfectly legal.
Am I rolling my eyes that you’re looking for a backhanded way of enjoying a movie you’re too morally outraged by to give money to? Well, it’s an interesting piece of psychology. I would personally want to doublecheck if the “apparently” is true in that case. The filmmakers have denied the allegations, after all.
If it’s the one in the news about the dog not wanting to jump in the pool…
Yes, the producer on CBC radio yesterday complained that the video was edited. The dog had been trained to enter from the one side of the pool with artificial turbulence and was being urged to enter from the other side. he admitted he should not have been 'urged" insistently for as long as he was. The video is edited to remove the middle part and make it look like the dog immediately almost drowned, instead of showing him swimming for a minute or more and his head went under for a second before he was lifted out; plus in tight zoom does not show all the safety measures and handlers in the pool.
Plus, the producer questions why the person, if they were concerned about animal treatment, held on to the video for 15 months and then sold it to TMZ at the same time as the movie premiere, instead of complaining right away. If PETA is involved, you know there is an element of exaggeration.
For the OP - I have never heard of a library paying extra for books or royalties for lending them. The only difference is typically they buy the more expensive hardcover for durability. (When I worked in a library many many moons ago, they also bought paperbacks and trade paperbacks and had them sent out to be recovered with hard covers.)
As for DVD’s on loan… AFAIK, those too are not royalty based. Certainly if there were a non-trivial cost to loan, they would be charging patrons for each loan. If it still followed the cost model where a movie intended for loan cost in the $100 range, I doubt many libraries would be loaning movies. (I suspect a good portion of the loaners are donations)
Roll your eyes all you want - the question came about as a result of several conversations with several people in my life, who you don’t know, and was a general question to you all about it. I tried to word it as plainly, simply, and succinctly as possible. But bless your heart!
Thanks everyone for the information - apparently a bunch of people who told me about this didn’t take the time to find out any facts before getting all outraged about the movie. I should have looked it up myself, actually - I apologize.
