Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Game of Thrones The Most Pirated TV Show of the Season

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-must-be-proud dept.

TheGift73 sends this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "With nearly 4 million downloads per episode, the HBO hit series Game of Thrones is the most pirated TV-show of the season. Worldwide hype combined with restricted availability are the key ingredients for the staggering number of unauthorized downloads. How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory complete the top three, albeit with significantly fewer downloads than the chart topper. ... While there are many reasons for people to download TV-shows through BitTorrent, airing delays and HBO's choice not to make it widely available online are two of the top reasons."

61 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Game of Thrones, one of the best selling TV shows on blu-ray.

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bought the blus because I saw season 1 via torrents. I will also buy season 2, even though I saw it via torrents. HBO haven't capitalized on the fans by hyping up DVD/blu releases. The longer they wait, the less sales they'll get. New shiny show whatever will take some of the limelight away. BBC's Sherlock for one.

  2. Big shock... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The oatmeal covers this pretty well. When people complain and are waving money at you and you don't want to take it, you have no one to blame but yourself.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Big shock... by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When a large mass of people are willing to pay, but you choose to limit the market to a much smaller mass just so that you can charge more, that's the definition of artificial scarcity.

    2. Re:Big shock... by schitso · · Score: 2

      Perhaps they should have phrased that as "are waving money in amounts that aren't obscenely in excess of what should be asked".

    3. Re:Big shock... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      No they're waving enough money. HBO just believes that if they force people to buy their entire service that's okay and fine. The reality is, internet changed everything. They only want to buy, what they want to buy. Hell in Canada, most companies require you to buy blocks of other channels. Even then, HBO Canada is usually 8 months behind the curve.

      Yeah no one wants to buy that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Big shock... by Karzz1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      People are willing to pay HBO the normal cost of HBO ($10-15/month) for the ability to stream HBO.. HBO is not interested.

      *sigh*

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    5. Re:Big shock... by Dracos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reality is, internet changed everything. They only want to buy, what they want to buy.

      This is why television's channel package business model is doomed. The average cable customer only watches about a dozen channels; the rest of their cable bill goes to subsidize the other 138 channels. Cable TV is increasingly seen as not worth the cost.

      If we could get a la carte programming, cable costs would plummet... those dozen channels would total about $20/month. But so would the number of channels, most of which couldn't survive without their current subsidies. Every cable and studio executive will proclaim to be a "free market guy", except in cases like this.

    6. Re:Big shock... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I think the bigger news, not covered by TFA, is that more people are actually pirating it than are watching it "legally." That is a bit of a surprise to me.

      I'm going to be generous and guess that that means about the same number of people would be interested in watching it, but don't want to pirate AND don't have HBO, so it's possible that HBO is only getting about a third of the eyeballs it could.

    7. Re:Big shock... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure there's no HBO Go service anywhere in sight here in Norway. There's Canal+, which would work but is a month late. By then somebody is bound to have spilled some spoilers, either because they're from the US or they do like I do. Besides, if you know the series is on a big cliffhanger and you know the next episode is on TPB, well... of course it's probably possible to use a VPN service to get an US IP so maybe I could use HBO Go like some of the other services, but I'm not jumping that many hoops when there's a convenient solution. This is why piracy is so big in Europe, they make a little more money in the short run but they're destroying the very foundation of their market. Once the respect for copyright is gone it's not going to come back...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Big shock... by robot256 · · Score: 2

      Hopefully when all those excess channels fail, the good programs will concentrate in the remaining ones and the chaff will be left out to dry. It seems like networks think they only need one hit show to justify their existence for the other 23 hours of the day, but they are so, so very wrong.

    9. Re:Big shock... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

      Sure, but then:

      1. My wife and I must be at home when the show is on.
      2. If 1. is during the time when the kids are awake or we want to do something else, then move to 3.
      3. Cable company DVR must record accurately. The three models I've tried have a 10% loss rate, meaning they just can't be bothered to record 1/10th of the shows they get set up to watch. The shows that DID work would often end up with periods of dead audio or would stop short and/or start late. Sometimes everything on the HDD would become inaccessible. So long, entire series that I was going to watch this summer.

      I've tried to watch shows without downloading: Battlestar Galactica, V, Walking Dead, Doctor Who, Sherlock, Torchwood, Simpsons, Lost, etc, but I had to download one or more episodes per season. So why bother trying to work with their business model when they can't be bothered to make it work? When GoT came out, I didn't even bother to try to go through my cable company. I don't mind paying as long as the fucking stuff works but it doesn't.

      Piracy. Works every time, no cost.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    10. Re:Big shock... by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you would find, is that all the mass market shows would condense onto a small number of channels, and any niche programming would simply be cut entirely. Do you really want to see non stop reality shows on 10 channels, with nothing else available to watch?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Big shock... by camperdave · · Score: 2

      The long walks part? What they need are some better traps. Come on... sand traps, and water traps? For real? What about flame traps, or spinning armature traps, or dizzy traps (if your ball lands here, you need to put your forehead on your club and spin around it ten times, then take your next shot). Come on! We need a golf/Wipeout crossover!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Big shock... by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Part of the reason that cable companies are willing to pay a premium price for HBO is because they are paying in part for a window of exclusivity, because access to HBO is an incentive for customers to sign up for cable. If the value of HBO to Comcast is decreased, because HBO is now available in other ways at lower cost, so that HBO is no longer an incentive to have a cable account, then obviously the amount that Comcast will be willing to pay for HBO will be lower. That's basic economics. So HBO would have to be convinced that the amount of money they would make by offering their shows separately will be greater than what they will lose by having to cut their price to make their service attractive to the cable companies. But offering HBO separately from cable adds additional costs for HBO. Instead of Comcast recruiting the customers and handling the billing, HBO will have to do this, which will drive up HBO's costs and further increase the price they will have to charge for separate HBO shows. HBO has likely done the math and concluded that they will end up losing money.

    13. Re:Big shock... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only way to push back is to repeal the obscene legislation that brands copyright infringers as criminals

      No, you simply walk away from content creators whose practices you dislike. The people who make Game Of Thrones weren't forced to go work with HBO. It's a choice. You don't like HBO's approach to running a viable, non-bankrupt production and distribution company, which means you don't like the creative people who - with endless choices before them - choose specifically to work with HBO and within their boundaries. Why would you want to consume the creative work of people who make what you consider to be obscene choices?

      Ah, I get it. You just want them to work for you for free, as your pet entertainment slaves. You're even willing to make up BS about criminality (good BS there, though - you just toss it out there like it's true, so many people will fall for that as you use that distraction to deflect from the fact that you don't think content creators should be able to do what they want with their own work).

      You'll feel so much better if you just admit it: you want other people to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create stuff that you in turn want to rip off. Just say it, it will feel like a real weight has been lifted from you. The first step to really going with a rip-off lifestyle is to admit that you want people's work without paying for it, because ... you just want it, and would rather buy coffee or beer or something else with that money. See? Once you realize that your ethics are at odds with the people whose art you want, and that you don't care because you're just going to rip them off, you can just go ahead and be a leech, and not be so fidgety about it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Yes, people are pirating game of thrones.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does it matter? Haven't we had enough discussions on this particular topic?

  4. It is known. by dualboot · · Score: 2, Funny

    HBO hates money.

  5. Buffering issues by Ironchew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't think of any online TV show viewers that buffer the video in any appreciable way. Downloading the show via BitTorrent is pretty much the only way to guarantee the show can be watched on a slow connection, or, in the case of HD video, viewed at all without constant underruns.

    1. Re:Buffering issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, I *pay* for HBO and I still download the shows via BitTorrent. It just makes it so much easier to watch where and when I want.

  6. If not artificial scarcity then what? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can you think of a model better than artificial scarcity for financing the sort of production values seen in such a series?

    1. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by robot256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think what the GP meant was obscene stupidity. If you can sell a thousand copies for $100 each, or a million copies for $10 each, and choose the former, the only thing to do is take your executives out to the barn with a shotgun. Or at the very least, not complain when people copy your shit.

    2. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Can you think of a model better than artificial scarcity for financing the sort of production values seen in such a series?

      Yes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here you go.
      Release show on HBO.

      Next day, post it on a site with commercials in it, DVD quality.Commercial can be zip code based.
      Have an option for someone to pay a buck to see it without ads high quality.
      Make the blu-ray available immediately at the end of the seasons..
      Have an option to subscribe to all shows, for 20 bucks a month.
      Sell a devices for people who need it that's easy to use. Plug in Cat cable, plug in HDMI.

      Develop a model where you will eventually be online subscriber only, forgo cable/satellite

      The tech to change to the incoming model exists right now.

      Where is something that will piss a bunch of you off:

      It would behoove the industry immensely if there was a site for all shows under this model. Every show that ever existed.
      free with commercials, pay without.
      Hulu was so damn close.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, the reality is pretty simple. The show creators can:

      1- Lower the cost of production (this, of course, risks lowering the quality of the product)
      2- Increase the revenue brought in by the show to compensate for the higher production values, which can be done by:
      2a- Sell as many units of your product to as many consumers as possible at the highest price the market will bear (which is calculated from factors such as competition, demand, available supply, and elasticity of your product). This is the ideal situation. If you cannot make a profit doing this, you must resort to option 1 above or 2b below, and should probably be planning on ways to get here through better marketing, better distribution, better quality, better price, or lower elasticity (i.e. make your product one that people can't live without). If you cannot do this, you should be questioning how viable your product is.
      2b- Create artificial scarcity in order to get a higher sales price at the risk of not selling to as many consumers (this almost guarantees a very high rate of piracy for digital goods). This is especially effective for ultra-high demand goods, like jewelry, which oddly enough only has value because it is scarce in the first place.

      Disclaimer: It's been many years since my ECON classes; someone will surely have better or more correct ways to put this.

      Businesses have been using option 2b for years and years, and it works terrifically, until people find a way to do an end-run around your artificial scarcity techniques. It's never been easier to do this than now, with the advent of the digital age. While I don't have the answer to your question, it's obvious that protecting the ability to create artificial scarcity for digital goods simply isn't long-term viable option.

      I guess this is why we are seeing a new wave of "constantly phoning home" software; it's really the last line of defense for digital scarcity. I have no doubt that it's a stop-gap solution, too; I don't think consumers will stand for this behavior over the long run. Can you imagine what things will be like when every piece of software you use needs to constantly fire off packets to stay running? Not just Diablo 3, but Office, Photoshop, or what the hell, Windows?

      I always find it interesting how corporations rail against the morality of piracy, which is questionably effective as a deterrent, and try to use that to justify everything from stronger copyright laws to DRM. I think they use moral dogma to train honest consumers that increasingly draconian protection is a necessary pain in the ass due to the evil pirates, rather than to actually prevent people from pirating their product. They HAVE to realize that since digital piracy isn't going away, the right or wrong of it is irrelevant, from a practical standpoint. Once honest consumers realize this, too, and how much easier AND cheaper it is to just pirate crap they want, they'll become significantly less honest. Can these corps really not see the end result of this cycle? I envision one last very rich fellow as the sole customer for all software, paying millions of dollars for each title, with the rest of the world downloading his provided software cracks, lighting his PayPal account up each time.

    5. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      You claim to be aware of a model for financing production of a television series that is better than artificial scarcity.

      Better, but not perfect.

      There have been plenty of large-scale, expensive productions financed successfully without requiring viewers to have a $90/month subscription. The "artificial scarcity" you're talking about is not there in order to finance Game of Thrones, rather Game of Thrones is there to bring in subscribers. Seeing it first and, I assume, in pristine quality, is worth something to those subscribers. So is seeing it a day late in an mp4 that you downloaded off the internet, but HBO missed out on all that revenue. So was there really "artificial scarcity", or is the only artificial scarcity the ability to watch it first.

      If "artificial scarcity" is the best way to finance large scale video productions (and that's what we're talking about here. Does it really matter if it's delivered via cable television, satellite, internet, DVD or in theaters?) then we'd see more "pay per view" productions. But that won't work for a series, because "pay per view" only works for something for which there is the possibility that it will suck.

      And ultimately, the "artificial scarcity" model failed utterly, considering that more people watched Game of Thrones without subscribing to HBO than the ones who did pay for it. It's the fact of life in the digital age that there is no such thing as "artificial scarcity". There is only punishing your paying customers and rewarding the non-paying customers. That is pretty much the definition of failure for monetizing a work of art.

      The people who pay for HBO are getting a lot more than just Game of Thrones. It was foolish of HBO not to collect some money from all the viewers, the majorityy of viewers in fact, that would have paid a few bucks for what they ended up getting for free.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Well, this *IS* Hollywood we're talking about here. Normal mathematics and accounting practices do not apply.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The issue with HBO is that they are not an independent company. With their programming, they are one of the few companies that could make a killing by distributing online, as we all know. However, they are a division of Time Warner. The rest of their channels just don't have the pull HBO has. What would happen to them if they started selling HBO without a cable contract?

      Large conglomerates lead to decisions like this: good for the conglomerate, bad for some divisions, and most customers.

    8. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So you are saying everyone is entitled to cheap entertainment, cheap being whatever you dictate.

      It's got nothing to do with entitlement. It's just what's going to happen. Restrict a market, a black market develops. You can bitch and moan about it all you like, but if you want to solve it, you need to address the root cause of why that market developed. Trying to legislate it away is futile, as it just further restricts the market, and enhances the value of the black market further.

      I don't think there is a good excuse for unlicensed viewing of recorded entertainment other than "because we can."

      And I don't think there is a good excuse for 100+ years of copyrighting entertainment otgo unheard.her than "because we can". Unfortunately, since I don't "donate" millions to politicians, my thoughts don't appear to count.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    9. Re:If not artificial scarcity then what? by Mista2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And make it world wide availability, in any region, DRM free, becasue it will end up getting pirated widely where it cant be bought legitimately.
      Pay TV: Im not going to PAY for TV aand have to watch Ads. If they want my eyeballs on an ad, the content had better be free.

  7. Didn't get enough ad impressions last time? by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've had a 1000+ post flamewar over this not even a month ago.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  8. Games not shown OTA by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    $900/year is NOT cheaper than buying something that receives OTA HD.

    Last night's NBA semifinal game was not shown OTA. It was shown on ESPN, another network that, like HBO, refuses to sell Internet streaming subscriptions a la carte. WatchESPN.com uses the same sort of verification of cable television subscription that HBO Go uses.

    1. Re:Games not shown OTA by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      I'm a Penn State fan but rarely see any game. I've decided they should be airing their games on Free TV, and if they are not willing then I'll just boycott. I'd do the same with NBA if I were a fan. I don't need sports.

      ESPN only charges $3 per home per month. It's a shame Comcast and other government-created monopolies won't let you buy JUST that channel, plus maybe $5 for line maintenance. (Now that I think about it I think you can get ESPN for only $25 through Dish... not a bad deal if you love sports.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Games not shown OTA by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Has anyone considered that HBO or other providers might have an exclusivity contract with their carriers?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Games not shown OTA by ejasons · · Score: 2

      ESPN only charges $3 per home per month.

      However, note that they require placement on the simplest "expanded" tier, which means that it is $3 for every subscriber, regardless of whether the subscriber even cares to watch sports. To net the same amount ala carte, they would have to charge much more.

      When you get Viacom doing the same thing, the networks charging for placement, etc., the base costs add up pretty quickly.

    4. Re:Games not shown OTA by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Just tell the carriers that you've estimated the costs of breaking those contracts and determined that it will be more profitable to not do so. Watch how fast they come begging for new terms.

      Nobody would pay the ridiculous cable/sat prices without the premium channels like HBO. Their the only channels you can be sure will have shows worth
      DVRing every season.

  9. Why pirate network TV? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    I can sort of get why people pirate GoT (although I don't agree with it... I can understand it)... because it's my understanding that it otherwise requires a subscription that isn't necessarily practical or convenient for many people.

    But the other two are on network television, and I'm not sure why a person would bother pirating that when there are almost certainly more legitimate ways to access it I'm not a fan of HIMYM, but I do like Big Bang Theory, and I've had absolutely no difficulty watching it online this season, completely legally, every single week.

    Maybe this is just a Canadian thing, but CTV, the Canadian network that carries Big Bang Theory, puts a lot of their programs online one day after airing it, and people have 7 to 14 days to watch it. BBT is up every Friday.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Why pirate network TV? by Kohlrabi82 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I will explain the situation for Germany:

      First of all, real popular shows you read about on the net normally haven't arrived on German networks, yet. Most of the time they arrive with at least one season lag, if at all. And even if you can watch the show by then, it is normally on networks which will drown you in ads every few minutes.

      And don't get me started that not even today, with the full digitization of TV, you have the option to watch foreign shows undubbed in Germany. If you ever had to suffer through the German dubs of TV shows, you would no doubt also strongly consider piracy.

      Of course you can wait for the DVD/BD box to arrive, containing an English audio track, but those may again arrive late or not at all. Coincidentally, GoT has been an exception here. Also, the pricing is oftentimes on the ludicrous side, and thanks to DVD and BD DRM you cannot even just get the US release.

    2. Re:Why pirate network TV? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      But the other two are on network television, and I'm not sure why a person would bother pirating that when there are almost certainly more legitimate ways to access it

      Because I can add it to my RSS feed, have it automatically downloaded to a network share, and access it through my XBMC setup. I don't have to check the schedule for air times. I don't have to be free at the same time as it airs. I don't have to pop open a browser to view it. And I don't have to wade through commercials.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Why pirate network TV? by John+Bokma · · Score: 2

      You forgot to mention that in networks have no problem (at least that was how it was in the Netherlands) to mess up the order of episodes, forget one now and then, and have no problem with moving the show from one time to another one, several times during a season. I pirate GoT because I am a foreigner living in Mexico and want to hear English (dubs are teh suck) and read English subtitles (I don't want to play movies loud as I am somewhat sensitive to noise, and at the level I watch a lot is just mumbling). FWIW, I also read the first 5 books, pirated, on my kindle. I wanted to order them via Amazon but read that the publisher had done a piss poor job. Now I am waiting for a boxed set with 7 books, hard cover, good binding & typography, etc. (i.e. at least same quality as the stuff from Subterranean press). Don't mind paying 25 USD/book, but hate paying 10+ USD/book for piss poor jobs (especially ebooks).

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
  10. I'm doing my part, are you? by morari · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just downloaded the entire second season a few days ago and began watching it. I have no interest in overpriced cable/satellite television. I'll probably pick it up on Blu-Ray next year, just like I did after pirating the first season. That's a lot better treatment than most of my pirated goods get. :P

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  11. Re:Your Sig by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

    +1 for you.

    I have an antenna and don't miss cable at all. In fact I travel a lot and see cable almost every day in the hotel..... rarely do they have anything I want to see. Syfy used to have a great block of Stargate SG1, Atlantis, Galactica back-to-back but now it's devolved into some weird reality/gameshow/carbuilding channel. The last good show, Eureka, got canceled.

    The other channels are pretty dismal too. I'm glad I don't pay for cable at home and just get my TV free (supplemented by hulu and fiction magazines). That's good.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  12. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, to speak for all the so-called free market dick-wavers "the market" . Which has. It appears most people are willing to pay $0, and they can find an agent that will supply at that price point.

  13. If you already have $80 cable, it's only $10 by tepples · · Score: 2

    The typical Cable channel only charges 50 cents per month (less for news channels, more for TNT/USA). Even expensive channels like ESPN are only $3/month. There's no way I'm paying 90 for HBO

    HBO is only $10 if you're already buying ESPN and the rest of the $80 expanded basic package that your cable operator makes you buy before you're allowed to buy HBO. I was referring to the price for people who have "cut the cord", that is, dropped pay TV in favor of Internet-only service.

    If I want Thrones I will buy the DVD for considerably less money.

    And stay a season behind, which other people who have posted comments to this story find unacceptable.

  14. We do not pay the gold price. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I paid the silicon price to watch GoT!

  15. Re:The price of early access by Ironchew · · Score: 2

    If I were to pay $90 a month for that, I would consider it a ripoff because I could neither resell nor refund my purchase. DVDs are slightly less of a rip-off in that regard.
    Oh, I'm paying for a service? I pay my ISP enough as it is; I don't need another money sink.

  16. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by neokushan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not a right, it's a simple business practice called Price elasticity of Demand.
    In a nutshell, the lower the price of something the more demand there will be. It's not necessarily a linear graph (i.e. 10 people will pay $100 but 100 people will pay $10) and it varies depending on the product, what time of year it is, the market in general etc. but the principal is always the same.

    In this case, all people want is the ability to pay for just the standalone service that they want rather than having to buy bundles of crap they don't need.
    I'm not even from the US, I can't get "HBO" and I support this philosophy - I have 165 TV channels due to my provider's "packages" and I find myself switching between about the same 10 or 15 in the average week, some of which are free to air anyway.

    To make matters worse, with my current provider there is absolutely no way I can watch Game of Thrones, no matter how much money I throw at them - they don't have the channel that shows it, only one provider does and its exclusive to them and only them (for those wonder, I live in the UK, use Virgin Media for their broadband and Sky Atlantic is the Channel that shows Game of Thrones, which Sky refuses to share with Virgin).

    To use an analogy, you want to buy a music track. That music track is part of an album of 12 other songs, most of which are terrible and 1 or 2 are maybe "listenable". Not only this, but there's only one music service that sells this album and it's not compatible with your current MP3 player.
    You COULD buy a new mp3 player, switch to the new music service (or carry multiple devices) and spend 5x more than the one song is actually worth OR just download the MP3 of the song illegally.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  17. Re:If you're willing to stay a season behind by ph0rk · · Score: 2

    Yes, and I won't. Most others won't, either.

    HBO can wake up and come to terms with the fact they can't fully control distribution, or they can continue to lose sales. Piracy is a market pressure that keeps prices low. HBO can react to that pressure or stick their collective heads in the sand and look like buffoons. Currently, they're engaged in the latter.

    Besides, I fully expect HBO to pill the plug at the end like Deadwood anyway. Why? Because apparently they were afraid they wouldn't be ably to sell enough copies of Deadwood elsewhere. Your $900 a year meant fark all. Hooray!

    --
    semantics are everything!
  18. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 2

    Thing is, when you combine Price Elasticity with virtual goods that do not have scarcity, you end up in a situation where you almost always make more money by charging less money.

    So few businesses understand this, but it is 100% the new way things work. Look at Valve, they just discovered it accidentally with the summer sale, and they've been going SALE CRAZY ever since. They realize that charging $50 for video games, especially ones that aren't gigantic blockbusters, is INSANE. Instead, if you go to (what the traditional businessmen would call insane) $5 per game, you get SALES LIKE CRAZY. People can't get enough! I buy games that I'm not even sure I want, because, fuck, $5? Take my money. They get SO many more sales, that it ends up being worth much, much, much more than selling a $50 box to a few thousand. $5 from millions of customers = millions of dollars. And with virtual goods the cost of each additional sale is next to negligible, with digital distribution anyways. It is almost always beneficial to make another sale, at ANY cost. Even if that is $1, that's $1 of profit. ALL the costs of digital goods, movies, music, games, can be considered R&D. The costs of distribution and production just keep coming down, and with digital distribution the costs per copy are completely negligible.

    We're going to see something EXACTLY like Steam for movies, it is only a matter of time. We'll be able to buy Game of Thrones for $1 an episode, and HBO will make FAR, FAR more money that way then they ever have.

    I just don't understand why its taking so long. The movie/tv industry is like Polaroid, trying to insist that the world keep using analog cameras when EVERY consumer so obviously is demanding digital.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  19. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The best, perfect example of this, is the Humble Indie Bundle / Royal Bundle.

    They let you PAY WHAT YOU WANT, because they realize if you give them $1, that's $1 of profit, and is better than 0. Each person pays what they can afford, what they feel is an appropriate value.

    What happened? Did everybody choose 0? Nope, they made millions. They're printing money.

    Shit isn't rocket science, guys. Get over your damn egos and accept that this is the cost of doing business.
    "You want us to sell the TV show our blood, sweat, and tears went into for $1?!?"
    Yes, Yes I do. And you'll make millions, so shush.

    Shooting themselves in the foot right now.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  20. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Incidentally, many people in the uk live in residences which do not permit the installation of satellite dishes, and thus CANNOT get sky, and therefore cannot legally watch game of thrones irrespective of how much they are willing to pay.
    There are people in other countries in a similar boat...

    For many people, piracy is the only option available to them at all.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  21. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by shaitand · · Score: 2

    Not true. Blu-ray sales of the show are at record levels. The market is apparently willing to pay plenty. There is just no way for studios to reconcile the idea that all those people who were exposed to the show via torrents turned around and bought copies afterward.

    Since it is completely inconsistent with the argument they make and will continue to make about piracy costing them revenue they will naturally do the right thing and give the profits they've made due to free viral exposure due to piracy back.

  22. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How it is possible to not watch, when all social media are abuzz? All friends, colleagues are talking about it??

    That's the whole point/problem of the current media model: they try to earn money by abusing part of human nature, which is to share an experience. That's also why the models are guaranteed to never last long: they are against the human nature.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  23. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by chilvence · · Score: 2

    You complete prat. The sentence is written to imply that piracy is the only option available to watch the show. Meaning, 'not watching it' is not an optional answer to the sentence.

    If you are ignoring a particular method of distributing your show to people, just because it has some superficial stigma attached to it, yours is the issue. People want the fucking thing beamed to their computers, that doesn't mean that they area against the idea of paying towards it. Look at itunes, steam, whatever!

  24. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by lattyware · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Crap. This is a classic argument that falls down. Let me spell it out for you.

    Your argument: The customer can:

    1. 1. Pay $x and get the product.
    2. 2. Pay $0 and get the product illegally.

    The reality: The customer can:

    1. 1. Pay $x and get the product, in a medium they don't want, with adverts, in some areas a long time after it's come out, etc...
    2. 2. Pay $0 and get the product easily and instantly, illegally.

    Yes. There are some people who will pirate something regardless of what you do. The reality is that most people, given the opportunity to get something good in a form they want for a reasonable price will jump on it (Steam, Good old Games, Louis C.K., etc... have proved this). Most of those that do end up pirating are kids who probably couldn't afford it anyway (who later become paying fans), or people who wouldn't pay for it whatever. I'm not saying there are not sales lost to piracy, but there are far, far more lost to giving us content in a rubbish way for too much. Inconvinience us and of course we'll take it for free without the inconvinience. Not only that, but you are giving people a way to justify it to themselves morally.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  25. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly, you hit the nail right on the head there...
    Media is marketed in such a way so as to put a lot of pressure on people to watch it, and make them feel bad if they haven't seen it while all their friends have. People who have not seen the latest shows are stigmatised as being "out of touch".

    If you do this, and then don't provide a method by which people can actually buy the content, then they will have no recourse but to pirate it.

    It's also now common to have friends in different countries, thanks to the internet... So the old model of releasing content significantly later in different countries becomes extremely damaging too... When participating in multinational forums on the internet, you are considered to be behind the times, from a backwater and looked down upon if you have to wait 6 months to see the shows everyone else is watching.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  26. HBO's Official Response by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

    HBO has actually responded to the Take My Money HBO campaign in a way, albeit via Twitter.

    Love the love for HBO. Keep it up. For now, @RyanLawler @TechCrunch has it right: http://itsh.bo/JLtSFE #takemymoneyHBO

    The TechCrunch article in question basically goes over the math based on the fact that the average person is willing to pay $12/month, and comes to the conclusion that it's not enough to replace the revenue they would lose, on top of the higher costs of having to directly serve up content.

    The Atlantic also has a good article up covering the revenue and business realities, and is a good companion piece to the TechCrunch article.

    TL;DR: HBO responded saying that cord cutters wouldn't pay enough

  27. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by meglon · · Score: 2

    The primary axiom of business: Your business has nothing to do with what you want to sell; it has everything to do with what your customer wants to buy.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  28. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by Phrogman · · Score: 2

    Yes, not watching is always an option. For most TV, this is exactly the option I choose these days. Not only is it very poorly made for the most part, but the bombardment of advertisements every 10 mins is beyond irritating.
    However, should the people at HBO be surprised when they make a top end TV series, market the hell out of it to create great demand, then distribute it in a manner that costs far too much to be possible, let alone practical for most potential viewers, and of course impossible for a vast number of potential viewers. If GOT is the most "pirated" TV show at the moment, it has been caused by HBO and its marketing deals, and almost no one else.
    If I could pay $1 an episode and watch it online I would probably do that. It is not an option though, the cost to me using my available options is to spend hundreds of dollars - which I cannot afford. Yet I want to watch the series.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  29. Re:Who should set prices, and why? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    You are deliberately pretending that not watching it, or buying/renting a DVD aren't options. Which they are. Your (+4 informative, really?) comment is just a classic justification rant. You want instant, and free gratification. Just admit it, and carry on with your day while enjoying that fresh and honest feeling.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  30. You keep using that word. I do not think it means- by Immerial · · Score: 2

    -what you think it means. Nobody feels 'entitled' to a movie.

    I've thought about this for quite a bit and I think a better word to throw around is 'opportunity'. For both parties. People have the 'opportunity' to download something they desire for free and somewhat easily vs. paying a lot of money and jumping through hoops. If DRM/no infringment was perfect, I think HBO would still only see a minor uptick in subscribers.

    On the other side- it is a missed 'opportunity' to make more money off of something that obviously has a lot of demand at a better price and availability. The math example in the GP (GGP) above is a perfect example of the missed opportunity. Another example- think of the 'Angry Birds' game at $1, loads o cash, very little infringement (who's gonna download a cracked version for a $1 game?), lots of sales.

    I think the Game of Thrones will go down in history this year as an example of change in the entertainment history in digital business models; or if they don't, an example of a great missed opportunity by HBO.