12 ms·

The Avengers: Why Pirates Failed To Prevent A Box Office Record

183 points by narad 14y ago

piquadrat 14y ago
Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on stage The direct impact of cam releases might very well be negligible. The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. That probability is much higher if there are CAMs available before the theatrical release. So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck.
- ktizo 14y ago
  The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. Surely advance screenings and reviews have exactly the same effect in that case.
  - tonyrice 14y ago
    People usually trust word from family and friends for things like that
  - piquadrat 14y ago
    Word of mouth from your fellow franchise fans might have a bigger influence than Roger Ebert dissing the movie. Also, there's such a thing as a review embargo. It would be interesting to see how review embargos correlate with box office success and after-the-fact ratings.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      The embargoes only run until a week or so before release - ultimately they want them discussed remember, that's just about trying to focus the publicity into a short period before release. If the studios think they have a real turkey on their hands (and they'll know this before the critics see it - the focus groups will have told them if they didn't know just by watching themselves) they tend to drop all press screenings. But you're right that word of mouth will often be more significant than a review. Blockbuster type films tend to be completely critic proof - the reviewers can savage them as much as they like and there's little impact - but if a couple of friend's whose opinions you trust tell you a film sucks there's a good chance you'll steer clear.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    Similar. Not having advance screenings is an even bigger red flag.
- tonyrice 14y ago
  I agree. If the movie industry focused more on making great movies I would generally assume that CAMs wouldn't be an issue like they seem. In another sense I do believe bootlegs do give consumers a preview if the movie is worth seeing the theatrical release. I did watch The Avengers in the theaters and I can say I personally believe it was well worth my dollar.
- walexander 14y ago
  > So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck. Yes, but it doesn't work exactly like that. s/not suck/profitable. This just means that instead of taking chances on a film which is a big risk (think Inception), we will simply see more and more super hero movies and more and more sequels. There is much less of a margin of error when people are downloading things. I think there's little or no room for a "Requiem for a Dream" type of film in the coming years. Maybe kickstarter will have to be the avenue to make movies like that.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Inception was hardly a 'risky' movie, plenty of explosions, cool visuals, and a simple but slightly ambiguous plot. Think of the way 'total recall' ends, is this just the vacation he had paid for? If you think about it they are fairly similar movies, and fairly well liked. If anything, I think suggests that a good movie can also have mass appeal. WALL-E lacks dialog for 1/2 the movie, but because Pixar could test it out ahead of time they knew it was worth making vary early in the process. Pixar's string of hits has a lot to do with constant refinement and feedback. Saying Hollywood needs to put out more Toy Story 3's is not a terrible thing when their done well. There is something to be said for the old script + 6 weeks of frantic shooting + cutting room floor style of movies, but it's a style that showed up when film was expensive and budgets where tight.
  - ender7 14y ago
    This was, sadly, a problem long before piracy came along. Hollywood is a famously conservative industry.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    Inception wasn't that big a risk. Nolan had proved he could do ideas (Memento), he'd proved he could do big budget (two Batman films) and he was willing to stick major stars in it (including arguably the biggest star on the planet). They then backed that up with a $100m advertising budget. In many ways it was an art house sci-fi film but in many others it did everything by the book for a big budget movie (proven track record, stars, special effects and action then hype it to the hilt). You're right that the pattern is towards the more conservative but I'm not sure that Inception was a massively out there move. Requiem for a Dream is a completely different beast and shows the other way you can do it even now. That was a cheap film - £5m or so. Adjust for inflation and you get maybe double that, which is still less than 5% of the budget of the Avengers. That sort of film can be funded by smaller production companies, by larger studios (often as vanity / credibility projects - Schindler's List was seen that way when it was signed off though I doubt the studio will admit that now) and in a host of other ways. I can certainly see large studios funding things like that almost as part of an incubator model - giving new directors who seem promising a stage to show what they can do before they let them loose on something larger.
- truxs 14y ago
  Exactly, when you look at the list of biggest sales you realize that the list is pretty much the same for pirated movies.
- rmc 14y ago
  Or alternativly, piracy will reduce spend on a crappy film, and people will spend the money elsewhere in the economy, and not waste it on something they won't like. Piracy of crappy films makes The Market better.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Indeed. If you make something excellent people will crawl over broken glass to give you money. Kickstarter is perhaps the best example of that principle.
tseabrooks 14y ago
Torrentfreak's articles seem to get better and better. They note the ways in which piracy is hurting films (foreign sales) and show some numbers indicating that in the US it doesn't appear to be hurting sales much at all. While obviously torrentfreak can't ever be considered objective in regards to piracy, they seem to be getting closer each time. Back on topic then, Does anyone have the background necessary to know if someone (anyone) is working towards disrupting the complicated publishing mess that keeps films from being available overseas for so long.
- yirt 14y ago
  Well, the pirates are 'disrupting' it rather effectively. But through more official channels, there's not much which can be done until rights-holders wise up. They have been and remain the core bottleneck.
- jcampbell1 14y ago
  I am perplexed by your comment about overseas release dates. There has been an absolutely massive compression in release dates in the past 5 years. Most obvious blockbusters are now globally released, and the spread for smaller films has also been contracting. Avengers was released overseas prior to the US release. A film like The Descendants was released 4 weeks early in NY/LA, and then foreign releases were only 6 weeks after the US release. That is insanely fast for a movie that could potentially have never made it out of NY/LA.
  - tseabrooks 14y ago
    I'm taking that info from the article. It was proposed as one of the reasons that piracy over seas is so prolific.
  - rickmb 14y ago
    This only involves the top blockbusters. For most other US produced movies the waiting time for releases can easily be well over 6 months. Besides, 6 weeks is still a long time in the age of instant global communication. Basically, all the hype and buzz surrounding a film starts well before the release and dramatically drops a week after. After a month, people have pretty much forgotten about it. This hurts sales even without piracy, because the artificially created urgency (why do you thing so many people go see a movie in the opening week?) has gone. There is no alternative for simultaneous release that doesn't hurt sales, piracy or not.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
brackin 14y ago
The people that should be scared by piracy are those that aren't making really high quality, possible cult films. If you're making the next Jennifer Aniston movie, which replicates tens of others then people won't be motivated to go to the cinema, some may pirate it and others may buy it on DVD just for something to watch but you can't dedicate a huge following to go watch it in the cinema. The Avengers got people to go in mass groups and those people told other friends to watch it.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  That's the industry's real concern - that the majority of nice people will pirate movies. As long as it's a few kids downloading copies of the latest blockbuster they aren't too worried - these people are guaranteed to go to see every blockbuster anyway - and will go with large numbers of their friends - and go multiple times. That's why the piracy of this kind of movie doesn't hurt US ticket sales. But when nice respectable couples decide to download the movie rather than making the trip out, paying babysitters, etc then the industry has to worry. All it's nice middle of the road mid budget movies that it can't pay for with fast food tie-ins or theme park rides and had to rely on DVD sales for.
dacilselig 14y ago
If I may play Devil's Advocate. I can understand why Distributors, movie companies, etc go so far in pushing anti piracy. Not necessarily just because of the fact that it hurts profits (although by a minor fraction), but also because it's only logical to do so. If movie companies were to one day come out and say that they are ok with people pirating their movies, who's to say that it won't increase the number of people attempting to pirate the movies since you would not be punished. In this case the act of making pirating taboo and portraying it as anti social behavior helps in minimizing the acceptance that pirating is OK by mass advertising(Although this technique may not effective, but I haven't read enough to get a sense that it doesn't work). Although they take extreme measures, it's that fear of getting caught that helps in maintaining their profits which make their share holders happy.
iamben 14y ago
For me it usually comes down to the 'is it worth it?' Avengers was worth it - you knew it was going to be great in 3D, explosions, cinema sound, Iron Man, etc. Whilst I begrudged paying £16 (~$26 US) for me and the girlfriend (before even thinking about drinks / popcorn) we were always going to see it in the cinema. Compare that to a film that doesn't excite me (or most of the general population), and all of a sudden I'd rather wait for the movie on Netflix or whatever, because then £16 is better spent on a takeaway and watching from home. I know films are different strokes for different folks, but the cinema is really overpriced if you're in the 'shall we / shan't we' category, so I can understand people just thinking - I'll pirate it and save the money (or spend it on dinner) and watch from the comfort of my home - the risk to reward is so much lower. I'm not saying that's right - just with the cost as it is you need a great (or mass appeal) product to get bums on seats. Or you have lower the cost in cinemas and make going to the cinema the experience ("we can choose a film when we get there") rather than people just going to see something in particular. EDIT: Regardless, great article on TF ;-)
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  > you knew it was going to be great in 3D Quick off-topic question. Is the 3d version worth it here? Usually most 3d films is 3d just because, but make no real good use of it. But being 3d just adds an extra unnecessary eye strain. This is why I watched the Avengers on 2d. But is this one of those rare movies (like avatar) where the 3d version is actually better? If so, I might go back and watch it again.
  - m0nastic 14y ago
    I saw it in 3D yesterday (begrudgingly, as I hate 3D, but the theater I went to only showed it in 3D). The 3D is used to pretty good effect for the most part (ie: it's not 20 minutes of normal footage and then a gratuitous 3D shot of something being waved at you), and I found that about an hour into the movie, I didn't notice it. What I thought was odd was that there were things in 3D that were just part of the background (like there was literally a scene or two where the railing on a walkway was jutting out in 3D). If you've already seen it in 2D, I really don't think you missed out; but if you liked the movie (and I thought it was very very good) and were going to see it again anyway, the 3D doesn't ruin the experience.
bobsy 14y ago
A thing to note is that it was a CAM recording of the film that was leaked. I have only ever watched one cam recording of a movie before. I think it was 'The Illusionist.' I was at a friends house, he slapped it on. The color saturation was wrong, the sound was like mono and the camera appeared slightly off so the very top or bottom of the screen was cut off. It wasn't completely unwatchable but it spoiled the movie. Its like watching a film through a neighbours window.. crap. Piracy has far more effect on DVD sales. This is for 4 reasons. The price of DVD's, the inconvenience of going out and getting the DVD, the bullshit adverts and unskipable junk before the film and the menu which takes 20 seconds to display before you can press PLAY. If there was a DVD quality recording of the avengers I think it would have easily had 5x more downloads, probably 10x. However, realistically the cinema is an experience. If you enjoy the cinema you are going to watch a film like this at the cinema - then maybe download it. I am firmly of the opinion that if you make a blockbuster film, whether it leaks or not it will do well.
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  Imagine how much money they could make if they released a 1080p HD version online, globally, 4 weeks at most after the launch in cinemas, and for a price of $5. That may or may not kill the cinemas in the long term, depending on how hard they fight to become more competitive and unique compared to watching the movie at home, but it would definitely not hurt the studios and movie makers. If anything, they stand to make a lot more money on average for every released movie.
  - andrewljohnson 14y ago
    When I imagine that much money, I imagine it is much less than what they make now. That's the nature of a disrupted industry.
  - jetti 14y ago
    Then you would see complaints from retailers on DVD sales declining.
    - 14y ago
rmc 14y ago
that there is a detrimental effect on international box office figures. The researchers attribute this impact to the wide release gaps Damn right. It makes sense that if you release a film in Europe 6 months after the USA that there will be more piracy in Europe. Why should we have to wait? There is a simple solution: Release films at the same time/day. This is an example of piracy making things better for the consumer, and this sort of market-correcting piracy should be encouraged.
- m0nastic 14y ago
  There's actually logistical reasons why that's potentially difficult, (having actors show up at premiers for example). I think considering that "overseas piracy" is the big stated concern for Hollywood (less people downloading cam-rips, more people selling DVD's on corners), their strategy of actually launching the movie outside the U.S. first made sense. I suspect we'll see more of that for tent-pole type films.
  - EvilTerran 14y ago
    I doubt there's a single soul outside the film industry who gives the slightest damn about whether the actors are at the first showing of a film in their country/continent/whatever.
    - SquareWheel 14y ago
      I didn't even know actors did that. That can't be the cause of delayed showings.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      Actors attending local premieres -> local press coverage -> increased local buzz -> increases ticket sales. It does help.
      - rmc 14y ago
        Makes sense. However the film studio and the public have different interests, film studio want delayed releases, public want same releases. Now the public have the option of piracy. It's up to the film studios to run the numbers and decide if the boost from a delayed sale is worth the loss from piracy. The world has changed. Film studios (or candle markers) do no have a right to continue to make money the same way. They can adapt or die.
daimyoyo 14y ago
I watched the CAM recording over the weekend(before this I had no desire at all to see the Avengers) and decided it was worth actually seeing in a theater. I think that's what a lot of people use CAM recordings for. To sample a movie before spending the money to see it in theaters.
ilaksh 14y ago
I'll be honest, I downloaded the CAM version and it was crap to me, and someone had mentioned it was a great movie, so I went to the theater to see it because I didn't want to miss out. I think the guy who released that CAM might have been doing the movie studio a favor because it might have made the next guy feel like he didn't need to do his own upload which might have been better. If there was a good version available when I went to pirate it, I wouldn't have dragged myself to the theater. I wanted to buy a large popcorn and soda with my cash when I got in there, but I only had $12 so I had to put it on the card. I just wish they would release stuff on Amazon or iTunes (although I hate that program) the same day as it comes out. Anyway, I spend way too much money on Amazon videos.
mayanksinghal 14y ago
> anti-camcording technologies [http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-dying-art-of-camcorder-piracy-120426/ http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-dying-a...] This is largely off-topic but I was wondering if there are any other popular anti-camcording technologies? Also could a large IR lamp facing the viewers (or aimed at screen) be used to disrupt the usage of camcorders? This will be additionally beneficial as a large part of the world requires heating solutions during significant part of the year.
- fryguy 14y ago
  At the avengers screening I saw at midnight, it was like an oven in the theatre. That's not the best idea with a room full of comic book nerds. In theory, as long as the lamp is as bright as the movie it would make the movies really dim for anybody recording it.
  - mayanksinghal 14y ago
    Didn't know that idea is already used, I was just throwing a possibility!
- delackner 14y ago
  This doesn't make any sense at all. You could easily defeat such a countermeasure by putting an IR filter over your lens. Dunno about camcorders, but usually DSLRs have such filters built-in to prevent IR from contaminating the sensor's input.
espadagroup 14y ago
I believe pirating does affect ticket sales but really only for the lower budget/less anticipated movies. I tend to bucket all the movies I want to watch into 3 categories: go the movies, dollar theater, and download. The less I truly want to see the movie the lower down the bucket list it goes. So yeah a movie like the Avengers which for me and probably most others will definitely be in the top bucket won't be affected much by pirating. Can't say the same for say Madagascar 3.
stcredzero 14y ago
Because Aardman stop-motion animation has a niche fanbase? :)
jakeonthemove 14y ago
The most mind boggling thing I've seen big studios do is block some trailers, promo videos or music videos in countries other than the US/UK/Canada or whatever their main market is. Why in the world would you ever do that? It makes absolutely no sense - they're blocking people in other countries from getting to know their new movie/single, which means those potential cinema goers and DVD/CD buyers either forget about it or go to torrent sites to get it, so when the movie/single is finally released, few people care about it. One of the stupidest thing I've ever seen, for sure...
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "Why in the world would you ever do that?" Because the distribution rights probably belong to someone else in said countries. It's the same reason why some songs are available on iTunes in the US but curiously missing elsewhere.
  - jakeonthemove 14y ago
    So why don't they push the distributors to release the stuff at the same time? It's their content, it's not the distributor who complains about piracy and lost sales, the studios can just kick them out if they're not making any sales... Besides, there are many countries where they have literally no presence whatsoever and it's like they're actively trying to prevent it from building up (unlike Microsoft, which just let people pirate their stuff, then came in and said "actually, you need to pay for that" - in reference to Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where they successfully converted many companies and government agencies from pirates to paying customers)...
tptacek 14y ago
Fatuous. A cam'd version of The Avengers is not a market substitute for seeing the movie in a theater. Of the movies you could possibly consider this way, The Avengers is among the least amenable to substitution via cam'd copies. All the widely-available torrents of The Avengers are cam'd or equivalent. There aren't screeners circulating. A DVD rip is a near-perfect substitute for a DVD (or a streamed version of the movie, or whatever). Nearly 50% of the revenue from motion pictures happens after the theater release, most of it DVDs. Think what you want to think about torrenting movies, but it should bother you when sites like Torrentfreak insult your intelligence.
- AndyKelley 14y ago
  I don't think you read the entire article, which explained everything you said here quite clearly.
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    Entire article? He didn't even read the bold teaser, evidently. That was, indeed, the entire point of the article. There are a few sites that tptacek will insta-contrarian on HN. Torrentfreak is one of them. You know the xkcd comic about someone is wrong on the internet? Substitute "being wrong" for "generating rageviews with libertarian nerds" and that is tptacek. "Despite the widespread availability of pirated releases, The Avengers just scored a record-breaking $200 million opening weekend at the box office. While some are baffled to see that piracy failed to crush the movie’s profits, it’s really not that surprising. Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on stage."
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I read the entire article; my point is that it doesn't say anything. Did anyone think Avengers cams were what Hollywood is truly concerned about with BitTorrent?
      - 14y ago
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Nice post, he fails to mention that the camcorder version may have increased ticket sales. I know people who have watched a torrent of a movie to see if it was worth the $10 - $20 it costs to see it in the theater. So of the 100,000 people who downloaded it, it would be interesting to poll how many went to see it after seeing that it was a decent movie.
BerislavLopac 14y ago
I'm pretty sure I know exactly when the film companies will abandon the current business model for movies (theatres plus DVDs) and switch primarily to online pay-per-view-like scheme, with DVDs going out pretty much immediately and theatres surviving, but slowly fading. It will happen as soon as the first studio realizes and takes advantage of the fact that with such a scheme you a) can charge for the same movie over and over again, and b) you can greatly improve the feedback on how popular which movies are, which could use an update/sequel and which should be left to die. This is something we in the Web business take for granted, but in the movies they are still too ingrained in the old ways that they don't see the benefits and effects of online distribution. But they will, mind you; not all at once, but as soon as it proves itself they'll jump on the bandwagon.
dutchbrit 14y ago
"This means that roughly 100,000 Americans have downloaded a copy online through BitTorrent. Now, IF all these people bought a movie ticket instead then box office revenue would be just 0.5% higher." Even though I agree with most points in this article, the 0.5% is a bit off. When a "pirate" (yarghh) decides to download a movie, they usually end up watching it with friends and/or family - not just by themselves.. Still, if you really care about a movie, you would watch it in a cinema instead of watching a bad "CAM" version.
- psquid 14y ago
  The point is that the stated 0.5% is an upper bound, so even if none of them also bought a ticket, as you speculated (and I find it very unlikely that this is the case), they would still only make up a 0.5% difference in the box office revenue.
gscott 14y ago
Even one lost customer to piracy justifies in the minds of RIAA/MPAA the spending millions on lobbying, creating draconian laws, and using the Government as their muscle.

183 points by narad 14y ago

Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on stage The direct impact of cam releases might very well be negligible. The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. That probability is much higher if there are CAMs available before the theatrical release. So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck.

ktizo 14y ago
The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. Surely advance screenings and reviews have exactly the same effect in that case.
- tonyrice 14y ago
  People usually trust word from family and friends for things like that
- piquadrat 14y ago
  Word of mouth from your fellow franchise fans might have a bigger influence than Roger Ebert dissing the movie. Also, there's such a thing as a review embargo. It would be interesting to see how review embargos correlate with box office success and after-the-fact ratings.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    The embargoes only run until a week or so before release - ultimately they want them discussed remember, that's just about trying to focus the publicity into a short period before release. If the studios think they have a real turkey on their hands (and they'll know this before the critics see it - the focus groups will have told them if they didn't know just by watching themselves) they tend to drop all press screenings. But you're right that word of mouth will often be more significant than a review. Blockbuster type films tend to be completely critic proof - the reviewers can savage them as much as they like and there's little impact - but if a couple of friend's whose opinions you trust tell you a film sucks there's a good chance you'll steer clear.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  Similar. Not having advance screenings is an even bigger red flag.
tonyrice 14y ago
I agree. If the movie industry focused more on making great movies I would generally assume that CAMs wouldn't be an issue like they seem. In another sense I do believe bootlegs do give consumers a preview if the movie is worth seeing the theatrical release. I did watch The Avengers in the theaters and I can say I personally believe it was well worth my dollar.
walexander 14y ago
> So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck. Yes, but it doesn't work exactly like that. s/not suck/profitable. This just means that instead of taking chances on a film which is a big risk (think Inception), we will simply see more and more super hero movies and more and more sequels. There is much less of a margin of error when people are downloading things. I think there's little or no room for a "Requiem for a Dream" type of film in the coming years. Maybe kickstarter will have to be the avenue to make movies like that.
- Retric 14y ago
  Inception was hardly a 'risky' movie, plenty of explosions, cool visuals, and a simple but slightly ambiguous plot. Think of the way 'total recall' ends, is this just the vacation he had paid for? If you think about it they are fairly similar movies, and fairly well liked. If anything, I think suggests that a good movie can also have mass appeal. WALL-E lacks dialog for 1/2 the movie, but because Pixar could test it out ahead of time they knew it was worth making vary early in the process. Pixar's string of hits has a lot to do with constant refinement and feedback. Saying Hollywood needs to put out more Toy Story 3's is not a terrible thing when their done well. There is something to be said for the old script + 6 weeks of frantic shooting + cutting room floor style of movies, but it's a style that showed up when film was expensive and budgets where tight.
- ender7 14y ago
  This was, sadly, a problem long before piracy came along. Hollywood is a famously conservative industry.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Inception wasn't that big a risk. Nolan had proved he could do ideas (Memento), he'd proved he could do big budget (two Batman films) and he was willing to stick major stars in it (including arguably the biggest star on the planet). They then backed that up with a $100m advertising budget. In many ways it was an art house sci-fi film but in many others it did everything by the book for a big budget movie (proven track record, stars, special effects and action then hype it to the hilt). You're right that the pattern is towards the more conservative but I'm not sure that Inception was a massively out there move. Requiem for a Dream is a completely different beast and shows the other way you can do it even now. That was a cheap film - £5m or so. Adjust for inflation and you get maybe double that, which is still less than 5% of the budget of the Avengers. That sort of film can be funded by smaller production companies, by larger studios (often as vanity / credibility projects - Schindler's List was seen that way when it was signed off though I doubt the studio will admit that now) and in a host of other ways. I can certainly see large studios funding things like that almost as part of an incubator model - giving new directors who seem promising a stage to show what they can do before they let them loose on something larger.
truxs 14y ago
Exactly, when you look at the list of biggest sales you realize that the list is pretty much the same for pirated movies.
rmc 14y ago
Or alternativly, piracy will reduce spend on a crappy film, and people will spend the money elsewhere in the economy, and not waste it on something they won't like. Piracy of crappy films makes The Market better.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Indeed. If you make something excellent people will crawl over broken glass to give you money. Kickstarter is perhaps the best example of that principle.

tseabrooks 14y ago

Torrentfreak's articles seem to get better and better. They note the ways in which piracy is hurting films (foreign sales) and show some numbers indicating that in the US it doesn't appear to be hurting sales much at all. While obviously torrentfreak can't ever be considered objective in regards to piracy, they seem to be getting closer each time. Back on topic then, Does anyone have the background necessary to know if someone (anyone) is working towards disrupting the complicated publishing mess that keeps films from being available overseas for so long.

yirt 14y ago
Well, the pirates are 'disrupting' it rather effectively. But through more official channels, there's not much which can be done until rights-holders wise up. They have been and remain the core bottleneck.
jcampbell1 14y ago
I am perplexed by your comment about overseas release dates. There has been an absolutely massive compression in release dates in the past 5 years. Most obvious blockbusters are now globally released, and the spread for smaller films has also been contracting. Avengers was released overseas prior to the US release. A film like The Descendants was released 4 weeks early in NY/LA, and then foreign releases were only 6 weeks after the US release. That is insanely fast for a movie that could potentially have never made it out of NY/LA.
- tseabrooks 14y ago
  I'm taking that info from the article. It was proposed as one of the reasons that piracy over seas is so prolific.
- rickmb 14y ago
  This only involves the top blockbusters. For most other US produced movies the waiting time for releases can easily be well over 6 months. Besides, 6 weeks is still a long time in the age of instant global communication. Basically, all the hype and buzz surrounding a film starts well before the release and dramatically drops a week after. After a month, people have pretty much forgotten about it. This hurts sales even without piracy, because the artificially created urgency (why do you thing so many people go see a movie in the opening week?) has gone. There is no alternative for simultaneous release that doesn't hurt sales, piracy or not.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

brackin 14y ago

The people that should be scared by piracy are those that aren't making really high quality, possible cult films. If you're making the next Jennifer Aniston movie, which replicates tens of others then people won't be motivated to go to the cinema, some may pirate it and others may buy it on DVD just for something to watch but you can't dedicate a huge following to go watch it in the cinema. The Avengers got people to go in mass groups and those people told other friends to watch it.

excuse-me 14y ago
That's the industry's real concern - that the majority of nice people will pirate movies. As long as it's a few kids downloading copies of the latest blockbuster they aren't too worried - these people are guaranteed to go to see every blockbuster anyway - and will go with large numbers of their friends - and go multiple times. That's why the piracy of this kind of movie doesn't hurt US ticket sales. But when nice respectable couples decide to download the movie rather than making the trip out, paying babysitters, etc then the industry has to worry. All it's nice middle of the road mid budget movies that it can't pay for with fast food tie-ins or theme park rides and had to rely on DVD sales for.

dacilselig 14y ago

If I may play Devil's Advocate. I can understand why Distributors, movie companies, etc go so far in pushing anti piracy. Not necessarily just because of the fact that it hurts profits (although by a minor fraction), but also because it's only logical to do so. If movie companies were to one day come out and say that they are ok with people pirating their movies, who's to say that it won't increase the number of people attempting to pirate the movies since you would not be punished. In this case the act of making pirating taboo and portraying it as anti social behavior helps in minimizing the acceptance that pirating is OK by mass advertising(Although this technique may not effective, but I haven't read enough to get a sense that it doesn't work). Although they take extreme measures, it's that fear of getting caught that helps in maintaining their profits which make their share holders happy.

iamben 14y ago

For me it usually comes down to the 'is it worth it?' Avengers was worth it - you knew it was going to be great in 3D, explosions, cinema sound, Iron Man, etc. Whilst I begrudged paying £16 (~$26 US) for me and the girlfriend (before even thinking about drinks / popcorn) we were always going to see it in the cinema. Compare that to a film that doesn't excite me (or most of the general population), and all of a sudden I'd rather wait for the movie on Netflix or whatever, because then £16 is better spent on a takeaway and watching from home. I know films are different strokes for different folks, but the cinema is really overpriced if you're in the 'shall we / shan't we' category, so I can understand people just thinking - I'll pirate it and save the money (or spend it on dinner) and watch from the comfort of my home - the risk to reward is so much lower. I'm not saying that's right - just with the cost as it is you need a great (or mass appeal) product to get bums on seats. Or you have lower the cost in cinemas and make going to the cinema the experience ("we can choose a film when we get there") rather than people just going to see something in particular. EDIT: Regardless, great article on TF ;-)

vibrunazo 14y ago
> you knew it was going to be great in 3D Quick off-topic question. Is the 3d version worth it here? Usually most 3d films is 3d just because, but make no real good use of it. But being 3d just adds an extra unnecessary eye strain. This is why I watched the Avengers on 2d. But is this one of those rare movies (like avatar) where the 3d version is actually better? If so, I might go back and watch it again.
- m0nastic 14y ago
  I saw it in 3D yesterday (begrudgingly, as I hate 3D, but the theater I went to only showed it in 3D). The 3D is used to pretty good effect for the most part (ie: it's not 20 minutes of normal footage and then a gratuitous 3D shot of something being waved at you), and I found that about an hour into the movie, I didn't notice it. What I thought was odd was that there were things in 3D that were just part of the background (like there was literally a scene or two where the railing on a walkway was jutting out in 3D). If you've already seen it in 2D, I really don't think you missed out; but if you liked the movie (and I thought it was very very good) and were going to see it again anyway, the 3D doesn't ruin the experience.

bobsy 14y ago

A thing to note is that it was a CAM recording of the film that was leaked. I have only ever watched one cam recording of a movie before. I think it was 'The Illusionist.' I was at a friends house, he slapped it on. The color saturation was wrong, the sound was like mono and the camera appeared slightly off so the very top or bottom of the screen was cut off. It wasn't completely unwatchable but it spoiled the movie. Its like watching a film through a neighbours window.. crap. Piracy has far more effect on DVD sales. This is for 4 reasons. The price of DVD's, the inconvenience of going out and getting the DVD, the bullshit adverts and unskipable junk before the film and the menu which takes 20 seconds to display before you can press PLAY. If there was a DVD quality recording of the avengers I think it would have easily had 5x more downloads, probably 10x. However, realistically the cinema is an experience. If you enjoy the cinema you are going to watch a film like this at the cinema - then maybe download it. I am firmly of the opinion that if you make a blockbuster film, whether it leaks or not it will do well.

nextparadigms 14y ago
Imagine how much money they could make if they released a 1080p HD version online, globally, 4 weeks at most after the launch in cinemas, and for a price of $5. That may or may not kill the cinemas in the long term, depending on how hard they fight to become more competitive and unique compared to watching the movie at home, but it would definitely not hurt the studios and movie makers. If anything, they stand to make a lot more money on average for every released movie.
- andrewljohnson 14y ago
  When I imagine that much money, I imagine it is much less than what they make now. That's the nature of a disrupted industry.
- jetti 14y ago
  Then you would see complaints from retailers on DVD sales declining.
  - 14y ago

rmc 14y ago

that there is a detrimental effect on international box office figures. The researchers attribute this impact to the wide release gaps Damn right. It makes sense that if you release a film in Europe 6 months after the USA that there will be more piracy in Europe. Why should we have to wait? There is a simple solution: Release films at the same time/day. This is an example of piracy making things better for the consumer, and this sort of market-correcting piracy should be encouraged.

m0nastic 14y ago
There's actually logistical reasons why that's potentially difficult, (having actors show up at premiers for example). I think considering that "overseas piracy" is the big stated concern for Hollywood (less people downloading cam-rips, more people selling DVD's on corners), their strategy of actually launching the movie outside the U.S. first made sense. I suspect we'll see more of that for tent-pole type films.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  I doubt there's a single soul outside the film industry who gives the slightest damn about whether the actors are at the first showing of a film in their country/continent/whatever.
  - SquareWheel 14y ago
    I didn't even know actors did that. That can't be the cause of delayed showings.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Actors attending local premieres -> local press coverage -> increased local buzz -> increases ticket sales. It does help.
    - rmc 14y ago
      Makes sense. However the film studio and the public have different interests, film studio want delayed releases, public want same releases. Now the public have the option of piracy. It's up to the film studios to run the numbers and decide if the boost from a delayed sale is worth the loss from piracy. The world has changed. Film studios (or candle markers) do no have a right to continue to make money the same way. They can adapt or die.

daimyoyo 14y ago

I watched the CAM recording over the weekend(before this I had no desire at all to see the Avengers) and decided it was worth actually seeing in a theater. I think that's what a lot of people use CAM recordings for. To sample a movie before spending the money to see it in theaters.

ilaksh 14y ago

I'll be honest, I downloaded the CAM version and it was crap to me, and someone had mentioned it was a great movie, so I went to the theater to see it because I didn't want to miss out. I think the guy who released that CAM might have been doing the movie studio a favor because it might have made the next guy feel like he didn't need to do his own upload which might have been better. If there was a good version available when I went to pirate it, I wouldn't have dragged myself to the theater. I wanted to buy a large popcorn and soda with my cash when I got in there, but I only had $12 so I had to put it on the card. I just wish they would release stuff on Amazon or iTunes (although I hate that program) the same day as it comes out. Anyway, I spend way too much money on Amazon videos.

mayanksinghal 14y ago

> anti-camcording technologies [http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-dying-art-of-camcorder-piracy-120426/ http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-dying-a...] This is largely off-topic but I was wondering if there are any other popular anti-camcording technologies? Also could a large IR lamp facing the viewers (or aimed at screen) be used to disrupt the usage of camcorders? This will be additionally beneficial as a large part of the world requires heating solutions during significant part of the year.

fryguy 14y ago
At the avengers screening I saw at midnight, it was like an oven in the theatre. That's not the best idea with a room full of comic book nerds. In theory, as long as the lamp is as bright as the movie it would make the movies really dim for anybody recording it.
- mayanksinghal 14y ago
  Didn't know that idea is already used, I was just throwing a possibility!
delackner 14y ago
This doesn't make any sense at all. You could easily defeat such a countermeasure by putting an IR filter over your lens. Dunno about camcorders, but usually DSLRs have such filters built-in to prevent IR from contaminating the sensor's input.

espadagroup 14y ago

I believe pirating does affect ticket sales but really only for the lower budget/less anticipated movies. I tend to bucket all the movies I want to watch into 3 categories: go the movies, dollar theater, and download. The less I truly want to see the movie the lower down the bucket list it goes. So yeah a movie like the Avengers which for me and probably most others will definitely be in the top bucket won't be affected much by pirating. Can't say the same for say Madagascar 3.

stcredzero 14y ago

Because Aardman stop-motion animation has a niche fanbase? :)

jakeonthemove 14y ago

The most mind boggling thing I've seen big studios do is block some trailers, promo videos or music videos in countries other than the US/UK/Canada or whatever their main market is. Why in the world would you ever do that? It makes absolutely no sense - they're blocking people in other countries from getting to know their new movie/single, which means those potential cinema goers and DVD/CD buyers either forget about it or go to torrent sites to get it, so when the movie/single is finally released, few people care about it. One of the stupidest thing I've ever seen, for sure...

potatolicious 14y ago
> "Why in the world would you ever do that?" Because the distribution rights probably belong to someone else in said countries. It's the same reason why some songs are available on iTunes in the US but curiously missing elsewhere.
- jakeonthemove 14y ago
  So why don't they push the distributors to release the stuff at the same time? It's their content, it's not the distributor who complains about piracy and lost sales, the studios can just kick them out if they're not making any sales... Besides, there are many countries where they have literally no presence whatsoever and it's like they're actively trying to prevent it from building up (unlike Microsoft, which just let people pirate their stuff, then came in and said "actually, you need to pay for that" - in reference to Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where they successfully converted many companies and government agencies from pirates to paying customers)...

tptacek 14y ago

Fatuous. A cam'd version of The Avengers is not a market substitute for seeing the movie in a theater. Of the movies you could possibly consider this way, The Avengers is among the least amenable to substitution via cam'd copies. All the widely-available torrents of The Avengers are cam'd or equivalent. There aren't screeners circulating. A DVD rip is a near-perfect substitute for a DVD (or a streamed version of the movie, or whatever). Nearly 50% of the revenue from motion pictures happens after the theater release, most of it DVDs. Think what you want to think about torrenting movies, but it should bother you when sites like Torrentfreak insult your intelligence.

AndyKelley 14y ago
I don't think you read the entire article, which explained everything you said here quite clearly.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  Entire article? He didn't even read the bold teaser, evidently. That was, indeed, the entire point of the article. There are a few sites that tptacek will insta-contrarian on HN. Torrentfreak is one of them. You know the xkcd comic about someone is wrong on the internet? Substitute "being wrong" for "generating rageviews with libertarian nerds" and that is tptacek. "Despite the widespread availability of pirated releases, The Avengers just scored a record-breaking $200 million opening weekend at the box office. While some are baffled to see that piracy failed to crush the movie’s profits, it’s really not that surprising. Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on stage."
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I read the entire article; my point is that it doesn't say anything. Did anyone think Avengers cams were what Hollywood is truly concerned about with BitTorrent?
    - 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Nice post, he fails to mention that the camcorder version may have increased ticket sales. I know people who have watched a torrent of a movie to see if it was worth the $10 - $20 it costs to see it in the theater. So of the 100,000 people who downloaded it, it would be interesting to poll how many went to see it after seeing that it was a decent movie.

BerislavLopac 14y ago

I'm pretty sure I know exactly when the film companies will abandon the current business model for movies (theatres plus DVDs) and switch primarily to online pay-per-view-like scheme, with DVDs going out pretty much immediately and theatres surviving, but slowly fading. It will happen as soon as the first studio realizes and takes advantage of the fact that with such a scheme you a) can charge for the same movie over and over again, and b) you can greatly improve the feedback on how popular which movies are, which could use an update/sequel and which should be left to die. This is something we in the Web business take for granted, but in the movies they are still too ingrained in the old ways that they don't see the benefits and effects of online distribution. But they will, mind you; not all at once, but as soon as it proves itself they'll jump on the bandwagon.

dutchbrit 14y ago

"This means that roughly 100,000 Americans have downloaded a copy online through BitTorrent. Now, IF all these people bought a movie ticket instead then box office revenue would be just 0.5% higher." Even though I agree with most points in this article, the 0.5% is a bit off. When a "pirate" (yarghh) decides to download a movie, they usually end up watching it with friends and/or family - not just by themselves.. Still, if you really care about a movie, you would watch it in a cinema instead of watching a bad "CAM" version.

psquid 14y ago
The point is that the stated 0.5% is an upper bound, so even if none of them also bought a ticket, as you speculated (and I find it very unlikely that this is the case), they would still only make up a 0.5% difference in the box office revenue.

gscott 14y ago

Even one lost customer to piracy justifies in the minds of RIAA/MPAA the spending millions on lobbying, creating draconian laws, and using the Government as their muscle.