Aiming for the middle ground.

Has the script for this documentary ever evolved. A year ago, I started working on a film that was meant to bring coverage to what I perceived to be a really misrepresented issue. I believed that mainstream media was doing a poor job of explaining just what was going on with piracy, and relying too heavily on corporate press releases to form their opinions. I wanted to use the documentary to voice the opinion of the consumer-activism side. Naive, I know.

But somewhere down the road, I grew up (thank god.) I started interviewing people, and I realised that the agencies within the industry were extremely misunderstood themselves. Interviewees outlined their very valid justifications, and explained the reasoning behind their logic. I found that the objections for many people on both sides of the issue stemmed from misunderstandings. I was delighted to encounter some people that were incredibly unbiased themselves, such as a lady from a certain organization to whom I spoke with today.

There’s always three sides to a story. And with this film, I aim to report them all. No bias. My aim isn’t to persuade audiences to any one side, but to say “You watched the movie. These are all the facts I could get for you. Now you form your own views.” At the same time, I want to satisfy all the interviewees in the film, hoping they will say “My argument is well represented. Now its up to the viewer to decide what’s right.”

To eliminate potential for bias, the narrator’s only function is to link interviews and explaing definitions of technical terms which may not have been defined properly during interviews. Furthermore, I will insure that the documentary represents the best of the arguments from each side; and that the editing is done in a fashion which does not misrepresent any perspective.