Meh, ive seen this so many times its hard to let it bother you.

Well the movie wasn't called "The world according to ants" now was it? No it was a documentary that comments on G W Bush and how he portrays himself in the world's view. Being the leader of the USA, he's a popular media subject and to say that a large proportion of the 40odd thousand viewers may not have known about the movie is slightly ridiculous. Flach Film certainly have legal grounds to sue but surely they should've used this situation to their advantage and announced it as a new age way of marketing the film. Who knows? Maybe the whole thing was a stunt.

Quote:

---

Well the movie wasn't called "The world according to ants" now was it? No it was a documentary that comments on G W Bush and how he portrays himself in the world's view. Being the leader of the USA, he's a popular media subject and to say that a large proportion of the 40odd thousand viewers may not have known about the movie is slightly ridiculous

---

My point is they may have found it by searching the word "Bush" or other terms as I'm sure a lot of people have done - I'm not 100% sure all 43,000 people, or even 5% of them actually searched the term "The world according to Bush".

While the company may have suffered lost revenue, my point is im not sure that all viewers would have sat and waited and watched the entire movie on Google Video or already had knowledge of its existence so they probably would not have bought it, rented it or went to see it in a theater. The great thing about YouTube and Google Video is how you can find things by accident.

I think of it as free advertising.

Dela : And my point is that other people know that too, especially those who work in marketing and who choose to stay informed. My guess is that it was a stunt on behalf of the producers to have the film found. In time, they will most probably drop the suit in favour of a Google "marketing" agreement

Interesting little article there. I figure free advertising for a film wont hurt. I have seen snippets of full DVD's on uploaded video sites before. It actually got me to go and rent one of the DVD's and watch it to its full entirety.

the question begs to be asked but couldnt one of their own employees post the video and make it linkable by Google? I mean really a movie About Bush isnt like the new Ghost Rider on pre release or any other blockbuster moviethis is someone with a copy of their movie making it avalible to the web ... Thats who they should be going after the uploader not the host of the links...we have all taken it for granted that thease companies who bring forth thease lawsuites are on the up and up ... maybe thease small film companies need to do is use the web as a delivery system to increase revanue instead of chastising the people who view it or the poor sap whos website thease files are posted on ... if this is the way to get rich why dont we cut out the middle man and post the movies on the riaa's website so we can sue them.......

thats jaz b**l i havent even heard of that thing, that company jaz want to extort money from gooogle/youtube

coz theres a lot of anime on youtube and i rarely see companies bitching about it as longs its not yet licensed in america

What jerks. Sueing Google for this is insane. I say we boycout their stupid movie, and keep uploading it just to show them how bad it can be. Kidding aside, I feel like Google did enough by removing the video promptly. I don't think the movie creator lost one cent of revenue from this incident, it was (as another user said) purely publicity!

At least by entering the word Bush into a Google search one can find the sites which it is sensible to avoid in future.

In the movie industry it doesn't matter whether it's good or bad publicity, just as long as it gets their name in the news. That goes for movies or actors themselves. In this case, Flach probably had someone post it for them to Google, so they could then get their movie in the news when they threaten Google with a lawsuit.

This past election we had a politician whose signs were being defaced. Two weeks in a row the newspaper did a big article on this along with a lot of quotes and promises from that politician, should the offender ever be caught. Now this guy got a lot of free publicity that others were paying the paper to print. Nobody was ever caught doing this, but most people suspected the politician did it himself and he never made it past the primary.