The Hobbit and Game of Thrones Top Most Pirated Lists of 2013

DavidGilbert99 writes "Fantasy fans are clearly among the most prevalent downloaders of pirated material if the 2013 lists of most pirated films and TV shows is anything to go by. The Hobbit beat Django Unchained and Fast and Furious 6 while on TV, Game of Thrones saw off competition from Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead as the most pirated TV show. While this is clearly losing money for both industries, the US box office doesn't seem to be suffering too much as it is about to record its best year ever."

Comments

Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and then stating their high profits?

Okay. Explain. How are they "clearly losing money"? Prove it.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reduced revenue from piracy = losing money they would have earned. Duh.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't prove that piracy reduces revenue, because you have to assume the people pirating would have purchased the content if it were not available for free.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reduced revenue from piracy"... explain.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[tbuddy]

It is a running tenet in the entertainment industry that a download equals a lack of a sale. Common sense tells people that an unemployed basement dweller, third worlder who doesn't have a legitimate method to access content, or cheap soul who spends nothing on entertainment are lost causes for a sale.

I wonder to what extent piracy is being cited on tax claims from these guys. Flawed logic could save them heaps a year.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[P-niiice]

Piracy may have added more revenue than was 'lost' by the download. You'll never see the real numbers though to know either way or the other.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[pmontra]

Or first worlder that happen to live in a country where the content has not been distributed yet and don't want to wait for months or years or forever. Those piracy-afraid-companies should just bypass all the distributors and stream content directly to all the world at once.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[gmuslera]

More than that, it creates a network effect, fans in places where it would be none, some of which getting the paid content, and there is, also, associated revenues (dvd/extended versions, merchandising, being first in the queue for the next release/season).

Your business don't exist in a vacuum, must take into account current reality and technology. Use that it can be copied and shared as an advantage, like Iron Maiden. After all, a good part of what defines us as humans is spreading memes, if you want to create a culture you must let it be distributed/copied/imitated/etc freely.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a running tenet among people who pirate movies, TV shows, music, games, and software that if they couldn't steal it they wouldn't pay for it either.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[CastrTroy]

Then again, I know plenty of "first worlders" who have ample ability to access the content, but still feel quite entitled to download stuff. There's people who will use an app every single day, yet would rather pirate it than pay 99 cents. People who will play an entire game that they pirated, and go way past the "I'm just trying it out" phase. Sure there are people with more legitimate reasons for pirating content, but there's a very sizable portion of people who just pirate because they are cheap. Also, I'd like to point out that not there's no show/movie/game/other-entertainment-thing that you just have to have. If they don't release the movie where you live, then just watch some other movie, or play some other game. Downloading it just gives the entertainment industry more reason (flawed reasoning or not) to tighten restrictions on content, or not sell it in the country where everyone is pirating it anyway.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[lennier1]

The same logic by which the NSA all but shoving a microphone up your ass has prevented trillions of terrorist attacks!

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

People torrenting a TV show aren't generally buying the DVDs, and sometimes aren't even subscribed to the channel. It's not even close to a 1:1 loss, but it is definitely a loss.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are 100% correct, and they have no right to the material, the point still stands. These freetards are not going to the theaters or buying DVDs or whatever, and therefore it is not a lost sale. If someone downloads a movie, but would have gone to the theater if they couldn't, then that is a lost sale. So some downloads are lost sales. Some are not. Some downloads may result in sales later (certainly only a percentage, but they exist). That download may also result in other sales, because the original downloader got friends interested (advertising). Regardless of the morality of downloading without paying, they are not all lost sales.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hollywood Accounting" - the actual production company might make a tax write off loss, but all the contracted out ancilliary services make money like bandits.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[tomhath]

A good example of what you refer to is known as Donationware, basically an honor system where you get the content free and legal, but you are also politely asked to pay what you think it's worth to the author or donate to a worthy cause.

It's a nice Utopian solution to distributing IP. But as far as I know there have only been a few content producers who have been able to make a living off it, and even they don't seem to stay at it for long.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get probably 85% of my content legitimately. I pay for Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and a few other services. I own a roku. But some content I can't get without full on cable subscriptions. For those I hit the torrent sites.

I'd gladly pay to get a season of game of thrones, boardwalk empire, etc as it was released in 1080p that was playable via plex or my roku. Just like music, once I could get the content in a unencumbered form I stopped 'stealing' my music.

That said, there is also a lot of pirated content that is never viewed. For example. I watched the first season of GoT. I kept my rss feeder downloading GoT though all the remaining seasons, yet I've not yet watched it. Recently I was gifted the first 3 seasons of GoT on blueray so I deleted those downloads. I believe a lot of piracy works this way, large scripts that download content the script owner thinks he/she wants, but never actually consumes. I've deleted tons of crap I thought I'd like, downloaded entire seasons, watched 10 minutes and deleted the whole thing.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[jedidiah]

The degenerate pirate is ultimately irrelevant.

All he does is help inflate the ego of some media mogul that really doesn't need his ego inflated anymore. The actions of these people are nothing to base public policy decisions on.

Entertainment is a luxury good and thus subject to a high degree of price elasticity. Beyond the degenerates, there's some price at which they will buy. You just have to find what that is and be wiling to offer it.

For the Hobbit movies, the fractional value of the sale of a single piece of media to Netflix is all you will get out of me.

Long live personal property rights!

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Jarik C-Bol]

relevent comic here:
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5713890_700b_v2.jpg

Re:Clearly losing money?

[evilRhino]

These freetards are not going to the theaters or buying DVDs or whatever, and therefore it is not a lost sale.

Actually, there is evidence that people that share files buy more than the average public.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

very sizable portion of people who just pirate because they are cheap

and i guess a greater size of them pirate because they are poor.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[tompaulco]

If someone steals your car and then sends you $100,000 cash, you can still report your car stolen.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[wisnoskij]

And that this group of people outnumber the ones who purchased the channel because they liked a pirated episode, or paid some insane price for a DVD box set.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[bill_mcgonigle]

If they don't release the movie where you live, then just watch some other movie, or play some other game.

Or volunteer at your local soup kitchen ... actual reality-based entertainment.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Scowler]

Of course some of those pirates would purchase the content legit if piracy options were unavailable. The real question is, how many? What's the percentage?

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Baloroth]

Yes, because in that scenario I end up without a car. If I "steal" a movie by downloading and then go see it in theaters/buy the DVD because of that, the studio/theater ends up with my money, and still has the movie in any case.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Scowler]

GoT is available on Netflix. Maybe not Netflix streaming, but it's certainly false you need a cable subscription to view it legit without purchasing it. I watched the first two seasons of GoT via Netflix.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I downloaded the Hobbit, also bought a copy of it too. I just didn't feel like going to the work of ripping it transcoding it etc. when someone else did it already.

So do I count as a pirate and lost revenue and accounted for revenue or do the revenues cancel out just leaving me as a pirate?

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Joce640k]

Yep. Is there a legal way for me to send the Game Of Thrones people some money just because I feel like it?

All they need to do is set up a paypal account or whatever and display it at the end of each episode. Don't they feel they're missing out by not doing that...?

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Joce640k]

You'll never know.

OTOH the "free trial" it might induce some people to buy the DVDs or a T-shirt. That's also unquantifiable, but all independent research shows it's more than the number you're worrying about.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I pirate movies/TV shows because there's no "just works" legal way to obtain them. The legal ways require an internet connection and/or proper DRM breaking in order to be usable (ex. playable on an airplane on a Linux laptop, which is a common usecase for me). Of course, as you say, I have no moral defense against the fact that I also don't pay for content. (I have pirated stuff I've bought just so I could use it, but I rarely bother with the buying step if I know I'll have to pirate it anyway.)

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Scowler]

Citation? I'm skeptical.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[zlives]

yes, yes sir are a pirate. A gentleman pirate for sure, but according to the laws that govern such things, a pirate none the less.

Arrrrr, or some such, welcome to the ship

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Cereal Box]

Personally, I pirate movies/TV shows because there's no "just works" legal way to obtain them.

OK, so you download movies for free, gotcha...

The legal ways require an internet connection

Wait, what? Doesn't pirating a movie require an internet connection? And posting on Slashdot, for that matter?

Re:Clearly losing money?

[bzipitidoo]

The price is not only money. If to pay 99 cents you also have to create an account, which means coming up with another weak password or just further compromising a weak password you use everywhere, and hand over a credit card number and your identification including your snail mail address, and an email address and perhaps hunt around to opt out of being put on several mailing lists, that's actually too high a price.

If people could pay 99 cents without getting themselves identified, analyzed and targeted for advertising, or worse, punitive pricing, I'm sure more would. Suppose "a study shows that men who bought songs like Under My Thumb and Maxwell's Silver Hammer are more prone to domestic violence", and therefore they should have their insurance rates raised, and be put on a crime watch list. 99 cents is the least of the price one might pay for a few lousy songs.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[chuckugly]

Depends on the definition of piracy I reckon; plenty of people acquire and view pirated content without an internet connection.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[jedidiah]

Game of Thrones is not available on Netflix when it is socially relevant. This is fine if you are a grumpy anti-social troll but probably sucks for most anyone else.

It's not available on the PPV services in a timely fashion either.

The Oatmeal comic strip covered this quite well.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[jedidiah]

> Wait, what? Doesn't pirating a movie require an internet connection? And posting on Slashdot, for that matter?

Pirating a movie doesn't require "streaming". It does not require that you have a constant, fast, and reliable Internet connection for the duration that you wish to watch something.

I have sufficient bandwidth to stream movies. I would still rather download them and be able to treat them as personal property if I have paid for them.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Scowler]

"Socially relevant?" That's how low we've fallen to justify stealing content? It's less than a year, and the content itself doesn't actually change over those months of course. I enjoy that content just fine, regardless its age. And I'd rather be an antisocial troll than a thief.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you avoid spoilers on the internet if you don't watch the show as it airs? I can avoid internet for a few hours to get the show. Not so much the 11 months it takes game of thrones to sell on disc legally.

Watching a show as it airs is very important in some cases. Until they give legal ways to get it as it airs, it's absurd to think piracy will slow.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[tompaulco]

Yes, because in that scenario I end up without a car. If I "steal" a movie by downloading and then go see it in theaters/buy the DVD because of that, the studio/theater ends up with my money, and still has the movie in any case.

Yes, you deprived them of income by taking the movie without paying for it. The fact that they still have it available to distribute to someone else is irrelevant. If you later buy a DVD of it legitimately, that is a separate transaction and next to impossible to trace back to a pirated original viewing and also irrelevant for them to have to justify.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I had something to say but I didn't want to post it over my ISP's connection (a TV provider) but apparently Slashdot doesn't like privacy and bans tor nodes. I have had a tor based /. account for these specific situations for many years but it no longer works due to the ban. Fuckyouverymuch

Re:Clearly losing money?

[swillden]

You're still ignoring the fact that piracy motivates some purchases that would not otherwise have happened, either directly, where pirates decide a work is so awesome they want to buy it, or indirectly, via buzz created by pirates who don't buy themselves but whose word-of-mouth recommendations motivate other buyers. It also eliminates some purchases that otherwise would have happened.

Whether or not piracy costs content owners depends on the ratio of those two things. What is that ratio? It's different across different types of works, and hard to pin down even in one specific case. The most careful studies done to date mostly conclude that piracy is neutral to beneficial for copyright owners, but there are still a lot of unknowns.

In general, we can't really say whether piracy really costs or benefit content owners, or to what degree. The fact that they're still enormously successful, however, at least gives us reason to believe it's not a problem.

(Note that I personally do not pirate, nor am I a content owner of any note other than small bits of open source software packages, so I have no stake in this.)

Re:Clearly losing money?

[YumoolaJohn]

You can't lose something you never had, and you can't lose something that was never yours (other people's money).

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are astonishingly stupid.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Nyder]

You can't prove that piracy reduces revenue, because you have to assume the people pirating would have purchased the content if it were not available for free.

I do not have HBO (or cable TV) and I do NOT go to movies. I downloaded Game of Thrones and I've downloaded the 2 hobbit movies (still need to watch the newest one).

Guess what? I would NEVER pay to see those. Or anything I download. NEVER.

Did the various people lose out money from me? No. They never were getting money from me. What do they get from me instead? Me recommending it to other people, people who are more likely to buy/rent/netflix stuff.

Am I a criminal? Scum? Loser? Poor person? Smart? Cheap? Frugal? Could be, but one thing I do not do, is support the copyright monopolies.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[citizenr]

... and then stating their high profits?

Okay. Explain. How are they "clearly losing money"? Prove it.

It works exactly the same way AGW does. Reality keeps proving models wrong, so models must be right, right?

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Nyder]

If someone steals your car and then sends you $100,000 cash, you can still report your car stolen.

Okay, besides your reply is stupid, lets go at your angle.

If we could 3D print cars that are the same as the original, and the various car companies kept selling there cars at the same price they've always have, do you think people are going to spend $10k+ on a car from ford, or going to spend very little printing out the same car from their local big 3D printing shop?

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Nyder]

Yes, because in that scenario I end up without a car. If I "steal" a movie by downloading and then go see it in theaters/buy the DVD because of that, the studio/theater ends up with my money, and still has the movie in any case.

Yes, you deprived them of income by taking the movie without paying for it. The fact that they still have it available to distribute to someone else is irrelevant. If you later buy a DVD of it legitimately, that is a separate transaction and next to impossible to trace back to a pirated original viewing and also irrelevant for them to have to justify.

What if i bought the DVD at a used DVD store? I'm still depriving the movie studio of their profits, since they won't get any on the used movie.

I'm not sure you understand the concept that you aren't going to get profit on every copy of a movie that someone views, it's impossible.

And no where is any company guaranteed profit from anything they make.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same logic by which the NSA all but shoving a microphone up your ass has prevented trillions of terrorist attacks!

Or apparently it hasn't, as people still say I've blown up a few bathrooms when they walk in.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[lgw]

Trying to dress up piracy as some sort of moral stance Against The Man is pathetic and sad. Pirating shows because you're cheap or broke is a fairly minor sin, but pretending its some sort of social protest is really childish.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[JudgeFurious]

I "pirate" a lot of media. It's a mixed bag really and not all of it is just completely freeloading. Example: I download rips of movies I already own on DVD/BR. I'm lazy and it's quicker than ripping it myself. Some of the guys who do this are excellent at keeping as much quality as possible while getting a smaller file footprint. I have no talent for this so why bother? I download music that I own on a variety of formats. I'm not going to re-buy digital content. If I own an old scratchy LP I feel no shame in downloading perfect mp3 files of the material. I also download movies that I skipped at the theater because I thought they'd suck. From time to time I pay for a good one on BR after the fact but more often than not I don't. The reason I responded to you though was your mention of a "free trial". When it started I downloaded Game of Thrones and got hooked pretty quickly. It's a good show. More importantly though my wife got hooked on it. We now subscribe to HBO which I would have bet the farm was never going to happen. We own books that we would not have otherwise bought. While I don't go much past that she spends money on all kinds of other Game of Thrones related junk. That all started because through word of mouth I heard that the show was good and downloaded a few episodes.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[brit74]

No, you don't. You have to assume that more than 0% of the people pirating it would've bought it if it were not available for free. I know people who used to buy stuff, and then they discovered piracy and now they don't buy anymore. They're part of that "people who would've bought if piracy wasn't an option" group.

(Gah. I can't believe you were modded "5 Insightful". Sometimes I hate Slashdot.)

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Is there a legal way for me to send the Game Of Thrones people some money just because I feel like it?

All they need to do is set up a paypal account or whatever and display it at the end of each episode. Don't they feel they're missing out by not doing that...?

No, they don't, because you wouldn't actually send them any money. Just like when you watched Farm Aid one year, got a little misty, and then didn't donate.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

You contributed to the increase in piracy by sending a message to the sites that host the pirated material, "I like this. I want more of this."

Just like people who download child porn, but don't pay for it. This is a primary argument of prosecutors - no one who touches the material is innocent, and everyone who does touch it adds to its prevalence.

You can claim this isn't the case, but you're wrong. You're participating in something shitty and propagating it.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[evilviper]

I watched the first season of Game of Thrones on netflix, then gave up.

The discs are nearly empty, with two ~55 minute episodes per disc. The subtitles (vobsubs) are ugly as hell, compared to the beautiful subtitles included when broadcast, the copy protection is aggressive, wasting my time, there are no special features to speak of. etc, etc.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to dress up piracy as some sort of moral stance Against The Man is pathetic and sad. Pirating shows because you're cheap or broke is a fairly minor sin, but pretending its some sort of social protest is really childish.

Pretending copyright is an unalloyed good is pretty childish as well. Copyright has huge negative consequences and people like you who claim otherwise are part of the problem. The amount of value that's been destroyed by artificial scarcity is staggering. A social protest in such circumstances is not as unreasonable as you like to pretend.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Social relevance = his compass and entire fucking boat, I guess. Not good content being delivered for an unlimited 10 bucks a month.

Social Relevance is all some have, referencing trendy oatmeal as their only tools to enjoying life or projected self-worth.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[mcgrew]

Actually there are some real numbers, although I can't find the link to them. A few years ago a book publisher was wondering how much revenue he was losing to piracy, so he commissioned a study. Since books are on sale for a few weeks before being scanned and uploaded to TPB, the study looked at sales to see how much and how quickly sales dropped when the book hit the internet.

To the amazement of both the researchers and publisher, rather than a drop in sales there was a spike in sales. Piracy wasn't hurting his business, it was helping it.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[mcgrew]

People torrenting a TV show aren't generally buying the DVDs, and sometimes aren't even subscribed to the channel. It's not even close to a 1:1 loss, but it is definitely a loss.

Nonsense. I subscribe to no channels at all, I get my TV from an antenna and sometimes CBS won't come in and I can't watch Big Bang Theory, so I'll watch it on my phone the next day. At the end of last season I got that season from TPB, and when it was released on DVD I bought it at WalMart. In fact I have all the DVDs except the current season, which I'll pirate next summer and buy next fall.

Where's your counterexample? All those people who would have bought it of they couldn't pirate it? Your "definitely a loss" has been proven wrong by study after study.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a running tenet in the entertainment industry that a download equals a lack of a sale. Common sense tells people that an unemployed basement dweller, third worlder who doesn't have a legitimate method to access content, or cheap soul who spends nothing on entertainment are lost causes for a sale.

I wonder to what extent piracy is being cited on tax claims from these guys. Flawed logic could save them heaps a year.

"While this is clearly losing money for both industries, the US box office doesn't seem to be suffering too much as it is about to record its best year ever."

Right, why do we have to go through this every time? There is no link between piracy and lose of revenue, are you new to /.? Do you just skip the article posted on /. that Big Media tried to bury, that this is Big Media driven propaganda?

You comments sound of a person who either works for the industry, or an Advertisement company!!!!

Re:Clearly losing money?

[antdude]

Haha, the company gave me a free registration for noticing its Windows system tray icon in a 24 episode. See http://aqfl.net/node/6912 for the details. ;)

Re: Clearly losing money?

[AmiMoJo]

The "red wedding" was tending on G+ immediately after broadcast. I'm not a heavy user, but it was unavoidable. In any case, most people are social and want to experience things with their friends. Not saying it justifies piracy, just that you can't dismiss that.

Sure enough, when there is less delay there is less piracy.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I pirate because there are no [convenient] anonymous payment options. Once bitcoin becomes more well-used globally, I'll start paying the 99 cents.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[AmiMoJo]

I steal a lot of stuff but don't feel bad about it. I always DVR through the adverts or at least channel surf or mute the sound. I also use AdBlock. I usually download music before buying it (sometimes second hand, older issues of CDs have better mastering), and rarely ever buy movies (although I do go to the cinema, and screw them over by using coupons and not buying any food/drinks).

I'm even consisting giving up on my TV licence and only watching iPlayer after the broadcast, and listening to Radio 4 in the car. I like the BBC so want to contribute, I just object to the way the licence is enforced. A lot of what I watch is on YouTube anyway, and my Panasonic smart TV's app doesn't show adverts.

So yeah, I'm a total thriving bastard.I mean, they get money from me because I buy stuff, especially software and music, but apparently because I don't accept their pricing out preferred vendor I'm some kind of criminal.

Tell me though, when has anyone been compelled to buy all the media they consume? Including stuff like books they borrowed from the library, and videos watched at friend's homes etc. Sorry, buy not every view earns you money. You are competing for a finite resource.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well said. I pirate because content owners don't provide a quick, easy enough payment solution that doesn't seek to mine all my data.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

plenty of people acquire and view pirated content without an internet connection.

Two words: LAN party

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

have to create an account, which means coming up with another weak password or just further compromising a weak password you use everywhere,

Protip: Why not come up with a strong password.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong.

There were no legal alternatives to piracy in many non-american jurisdictions until one or 2 years ago.

There were many american TV shows airing when I worked for an american media distributions company some years ago. Needless to say I quit because of how fucking slow the legal machinery was. Call it childish if you will but if other people feel as I do and act as I do, you guys will be the ones with a problem.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sometimes in my spare time deprive the following on their potential income : 1) restaurants, 2) bike repair shops, 3) barbers, 4) taxi firms by

1) making my own food, 2) repairing my own bike, 3) cutting my own hair and 4) hitching a ride in my friends car.

Those businesses wouldn't dream of trying to sue or to lobby for having my behaviour illegalized. They understand people would laugh them in the face if they even tried.

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The more people starting to want something, you ensure your future market. There's a reason Microsoft have been giving cheap / free licenses for their operating systems and other softwares to schools. So that the kids will want to use Microsoft software when they're grown ups and start working.

Sharing your (current) is an investment in the future, creating a demand for your (future) work...

Re:Clearly losing money?

[micahraleigh]

Iron Maiden who?

You sound like you're talking to a judge and justifying theft.

If you want to get paid for your work, you should pay for others' work.

Re: Clearly losing money?

[Common Joe]

For those too lazy to google it: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

Re:Clearly losing money?

[Whorhay]

Additionally it is not at all uncommon for businesses to ask their patrons how they heard of the product/service to start with. I can't count how many times I've been asked that or seen it in written form. And occasionally the appropriate answer would be I heard or saw an illegal copy, but that isn't ordinarily a given option to check.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing "clearly losing money for both industries" about it. Fans will buy it on blu-ray or DVD, or even itunes as soon as it's available, replacing their existing copy. TV shows are irrelevant, they're invariably free to air and watching them via downloads the next day doesn't cost the cable company or the program maker anything. The advert slots have already been paid for weeks, if not months in advance.

The only exception is Thrones. HBO's refusal to let that out via alternative means in a timely manner is probably costing them. However, fans of the show will soon buy it on blu-ray when it eventually hits the shelves.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy does interrupt the profit model, but the best way to combat the issue isn't to lock up the goodies, but to make the goodies more ubiquitous through online distribution and ask for a reasonable price that will deliver the same profit margin when you take into account the less expensive distribution model of online distribution. The industry initially took the wrong approach, but is now learning its lesson the hard way. When faced with quickly changing technology, it's best to embrace the new and find the best way to make your customers come to you rather than pirate sites in India, China, Russia or via a torrent. If you make the cost reasonable, and include nice extras that they can't get elsewhere, you will find your customers will keep the model going.

Re:Bullshit

[MBGMorden]

The only exception is Thrones. HBO's refusal to let that out via alternative means in a timely manner is probably costing them. However, fans of the show will soon buy it on blu-ray when it eventually hits the shelves.

I haven't figured out why they won't just sell you an HBO Go subscription as a separate entity. They have a digital content distribution system in place. It has support on many different devices. Yet they still require that you buy their channel through a cable/satellite provider and THEN get access to it.

Why not just have an HBO Go subscription for $10/month? They can cut out the middle man (cable companies) and get a lot more customers that only do internet based TV.

Re:Bullshit

[Yaotzin]

Because they can. I'll bet they've thought about it and concluded that the most profitable option is to keep their cable bundling for as long as possible. I live in Sweden where HBO opened up shop about a year ago as a purely digital service for ~12 USD/month (at current rates).

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

they get $10 a month per subscriber with the deal that they can't offer a stand alone HBO Go sub
if they did then the cable companies would ask for more money to carry HBO since it would mean fewer customers for them

there is also the fact they Time Warner doesn't pay anything to collect the cash. no CC fees, no billing department, no billing software. they just get a check from their cable company customers and that's it. offering HBO Go stand alone would mean incurring more costs

Re:Bullshit

[wvmarle]

For me living in a country where Games of Thrones is not on TV or available via any other channel, TPB is the only reasonable option. Recently I saw some promo of HBO pay-TV having that show, sorry, not going to pay a buy a channel subscription for a single season of a single show (and of course subscriptions go per year). And that's not even considering past shows that I didn't watch yet.

And honestly TPB serves me so well that I don't even bother checking out the other options.

Re:Bullshit

[wvmarle]

There's nothing "clearly losing money for both industries" about it.

Of course not. That's the standard line. First you complain about piracy, how it's so bad for business, how you obviously lose billions, and next you post the best revenue and profits ever, showing that, on a per-person basis, people have actually spent MORE on movie tickets, CDs, DVDs, online services, etc, than the year before. Despite all that piracy. Or should I say, thanks to all that piracy?

Re:Bullshit

[Kjella]

Because in the US they want to be the middle man for others, they want to use HBO original series as the hook to get people subscribing to HBO so they can sell network time. In the nordic countries we have HBO Nordic which is a pure Internet solution similar to HBO Go, funny thing is that I subscribe but I still use my one-stop torrent shop to watch those shows as well.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

the cable companies would ask for more money to carry HBO

Hold on! The cable companies always claim they're the ones who pay to carry a channel.

Re:Bullshit

[ComputerGeek01]

> Why not just have an HBO Go subscription for $10/month? They can cut out the middle man (cable companies) and get a lot more customers that only do internet based TV. Because they are the middle man; HBO is owned by Time Warner whose entire business model is packaging tons of crap you don't want with the few things that you do and yelling at the top of their lungs about what a great value it is.

Re:Bullshit

[the_other_chewey]

I haven't figured out why they won't just sell you an HBO Go subscription as a separate entity. They have a digital content distribution system in place. It has support on many different devices. Yet they still require that you buy their channel through a cable/satellite provider and THEN get access to it.

Why not just have an HBO Go subscription for $10/month? They can cut out the middle man (cable companies) and get a lot more customers that only do internet based TV.

HBO doesn't want to cut out the middlemen, because doing so would actually lose
them money (or at least not make them as much as one would expect, while at the
same time seriously pissing off their current revenue sources):

Why Doesn't HBO Allow Non-Cable Subscribers To Subscribe To HBO Go à la Hulu?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

HBO is a premium channel you have to pay extra for. in the USA it costs $10 - $20 per month extra depending on your TV provider and whether you are in the special discount period of the first few months.

HBO is owned by time warner and they share that $20 revenue with the TV provider

and no time warner cable is not time warner. its a separate company now

Re:Bullshit

[FictionPimp]

I'd go as high as 10 USD a month for HBO. But honestly the value of netflix at 8 USD a month is growing to a point where I'm not even sure on that. For 8 bucks a month I get tons of old content and a growing amount of really good original content. Where as netflix has tons of stuff for me to watch, HBO only has a few shows I'd really care about seeing. Maybe a Pay per show/season would be a better approach.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't figured out why they won't just sell you an HBO Go subscription as a separate entity

Obvious reason is their business partners: Comcast, Time Warner, Dish, et al

HBO do deals with those business partners, not subscribers. If HBO do streaming, Comcast and the rest stop doing deals with HBO and then the gravy train grinds to a halt

Without those business partners, HBO must start a whole new business, marketing themselves, signing up and then dealing with a million whiny customers. So much nicer to let others deal with all the peons while sitting back, making decent TV, and collecting big checks from a small number of resellers

Re:Bullshit

[joe_frisch]

I would have been happy to pay for GOT, but they wouldn't let me. I had to buy a continuing subscription - that based on past experience might be nearly impossible to cancel. Regulations requiring a "cancel subscription" button right next to the "subscribe" button on websites would help.

I don't know if this is the case with HBO in particular, but it isn't obvious from the website how to cancel.

Re:Bullshit

[Cereal Box]

You can't buy GoT on Blu-Ray where you live?

Re:Bullshit

[Cereal Box]

When you say "selling network time" that sounds like you're saying "selling advertisements", which HBO doesn't actually do. They do create shows to entice people to subscribe, yes, but advertising is not the reason.

Re:Bullshit

[Cereal Box]

You have to cancel HBO with your cable company. Yes, you have to call up to cancel it, but it is by no means "nearly impossible". People do it all the time. Subscribe for the show, cancel when it's over. You may even be offered a couple extra months to not cancel.

And couldn't you buy the Blu-Rays when they come out? Sounds like you have options, you just don't want to pursue them.

Re:Bullshit

[wvmarle]

Maybe. But then I'd first have to buy a Blu-Ray player. DVD player is broken; still have to go get a new one; then at least my son can watch his DVDs again, which for long time was our only use of that device.

Disks and other physical media are passé - it's been like eight years since I had a CD/DVD player in my computer even, simply no use for it. HD storage is so much more convenient.

Re:Bullshit

[joe_frisch]

How long will I need to stay on the phone to cancel? The cost of my time could easily exceed the cost of the subscription (like most high tech workers, time translates into a lot of money for me). If there was a cancel button, I'd subscribe now and quite likely keep the subscription, but it really pisses me off to be trapped .

I'd buy the blu-rays now if they were available, but since I need to wait anyway I'll just get them on netflix. (at considerably less profit to the company selling them I think).

Re:Bullshit

[jedidiah]

> You can't buy GoT on Blu-Ray where you live?

The current season? No.

It's Game of Thrones, not Breaking Bad.

Re: Bullshit

[Scowler]

So not stealing stuff is considered too old-fashioned? (Just how many lame excuses for piracy are in this forum today??)

Re:Bullshit

[cascadingstylesheet]

I haven't figured out why they won't just sell you an HBO Go subscription as a separate entity. They have a digital content distribution system in place. It has support on many different devices. Yet they still require that you buy their channel through a cable/satellite provider and THEN get access to it.

Why not just have an HBO Go subscription for $10/month? They can cut out the middle man (cable companies) and get a lot more customers that only do internet based TV.

These things are always more complicated than they seem ... all the players are experts at maximizing rent. Logic, from the consumer's standpoint, has little to do with it.

Think Windows and PCs, for example.

Re: Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If your time translates to a "lot of money," why don't you just nut up and subscribe to HBO? It's really not that expensive when bundled with fast internet, just the price of a nice lunch.

I have more money than time so that's what I do. Pirating is a huge waste of my time and it doesn't support the artists I like.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect a rather large issue is HBO likely has contracts with the cable/satellite operators. I'm guessing streaming without renting via cable/satellite would violate those contracts. I suspect HBO could make a fair bit more money by streaming directly, but they're perfectly happy with the current situation and so radical moves are disliked. I hope they will change in the near future, but I understand why they like the current situation.

Re: Bullshit

[wvmarle]

Having stuff not available for digital sale but only physical media is old-fashioned. Since at least a decade most music can be bought from multiple sources in digital format - why is video lagging behind so badly?

People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[Anonymous Coward]

A shit director teamed up with a bunch of sleazy Hollywood execs to turn a short and beloved fantasy story into a gigantic three part turd of a movie series in order to try to milk as much cash out of the IP.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[BreakBad]

Yes, why pay for someone to shit on your face when someone else would do it for free.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[CastrTroy]

Seriously, I made it about 30-45 minutes into the first hobbit movie before turning it off. Basically same opinion as yours. I found the first installment of LOTR was too slow for my tastes, so taking the smallest book and chopping it into 3 parts is just kind of ludicrous.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[Sponge Bath]

The old saying was wrong. Old hobbits are not hard to break. Smeagol is as Smeagol does.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[Whorhay]

It would seem to me that you would rather a straight up non stop action movie. That isn't how these movies were billed. Personally I liked the first movie and look forward to watching the second some time in the near future. In order to do just The Hobbit right would have required one very long movie or two shorter ones. Instead they decided to do a trilogy and include more material to flesh out the world more. When originally published The Hobbit came first, only later did Tolkien expand on his world for the LOTR trilogy. So now that we are getting movies delivered out of order it makes sense to include more of the supporting story for the entire world because there is now an existing market with an appetite for more of that world and story.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[yodleboy]

what would have made you happy? Michael Bay directing The Hobbit as a two hour explosion fest? You want to see shitting all over a beloved short novel? Try the Starship Troopers movie. Now, maybe 3 movies is a bit long, but at least it's being done by someone that cares about the source material. Did you ever think that sometimes the only way to sell this stuff to those sleazy execs is to give them a way to milk it?

It's incredible that people will sit around and bitch about getting too much entertainment at a time when most studios would be happy to give you a 90 min stinker like the latest Conan remake for the same price.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[bill_mcgonigle]

in order to try to milk as much cash out of the IP.

I'm fine with that - what I didn't appreciate was the entirely confused story, poorly written and acted characterization, an entirely inappropriate thematic approach, and the use of the film as a vehicle to funnel huge amounts of money to WETA to pay for entirely misplaced Massive graphics scenes.

In short, trying to make the Hobbit feel exactly like LoTR, which also ruins the rise and influence of Sauron in LoTR by failing to provide the required contrast. The two film eras needed to have different approaches, and Jackson failed at this, probably in a vain attempt to strengthen his franchise.

Allow me to save the Internet some bandwidth: don't torrent The Hobbit. It sucks. Read the book, it's terrific.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Hobbit" book did NOT come first, just FYI.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[Talderas]

The Hobbit was published in 1937. The Lord of the Rings was published in 1955. The Simirillion was published in 1977. I would like to know how you consider the Hobbit to not come first.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same logic that people claim that Lord of the Rings was derivative of Dungeons & Dragons, probably.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[CastrTroy]

I'm not arguing one way or the other, but does date of publishing actually correspond to the order they were actually written in? Maybe it was just much easier to find a publisher for a short book, then it was to find a publisher for a long trilogy. With such a gap between releases, I would say this isn't the case, but it's entirely possible to have a a book written before another book, but be published after.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit???

[Talderas]

It is possible. In general large universe fictional settings will often times have a lot of individual writings that are developed that shape the universe prior to any large scale work is written. While Tolkein had some other short stories in the universe other than the Hobbit, some of which became part of the Simarillion, he didn't start writing LOTR until the end of 1937, the same year in which the Hobbit was published.

Bad movies and good TV

[Anonymous Coward]

So people download bad movies and acclaimed television series. That's a strange mix. I guess people are willing to pay for good movies.

Obvious

[hedleyroos]

Fans of those movies / shows are more into gaming / software and know how to use torrents and usenet. There will always be a percentage of people who pirate material. The industry should just accept that and move on.

Too long

[RogueyWon]

To start with a disclaimer: I haven't pirated The Hobbit (or indeed any other movies since my student days many, many years ago) and have no intention of doing so.

But on the other hand, after sitting through the first one, there is no way on Earth I am going to sit through the second one in a cinema. If I ever do watch it (which is a bit 50/50 given what a bad adaptation I thought the first one was), it will be in the comfort of my own home in a format where I can pause and resume at will, breaking it up into more manageable chunks.

I don't actually dislike going to the cinema; I'll happily sit through 2 hours or so of movie. But if you want me to go for a 3 hour+ bladder-bursting ass-numbing epic, then give me the opportunity to pause it for a while and go for a walk around in the middle.

Hell, I can still just about remember when longer films used to have an intermission during showings in a cinema. I know that's not an idea that's popular in the days of cram-'em-in multiplexes, but it might be worth bringing back for films like these to lure people like me back to the theatres.

Re:Too long

[CubicleZombie]

Pause button? To sit through any of those movies, I either need a fast-forward button or a place to nap.

Re:Too long

[CastrTroy]

Whatever happened to putting an "intermission" in long movies? Would it really be that bad? The Cinemas would probably make a few extra dollars. People could get up, stretch their legs, use the bathroom, buy some more snacks and drinks. It's not needed for 1.5-2 hour films, but for movies pushing 3 hours it would definitely be an advantage is some respects.

Re:Too long

[drinkypoo]

Whatever happened to putting an "intermission" in long movies?

The ongoing decline of quality in movie audiences, I imagine. Someone will have to hold your seat because if you leave say a sweatshirt, if it's not stolen it will likely be urinated upon. If it is stolen, when you return someone will likely be in your seat, and odds on they'll be on their cellphone and will insist you do not disturb them.

All in all, piss on going to the theater. I have a Blu-Ray player which I've used never, because even an upscaled DVD looks good enough for my purposes. Perhaps one day I'll get my fancy LED from DX, and then I'll see about reviving my DLP projector. With a 1600LM LED I should still be able to get an adequately bright 10' picture even after color correction.

Re:Too long

[necro81]

But on the other hand, after sitting through the first one, there is no way on Earth I am going to sit through the second one in a cinema

I'm with you. What I'm actually looking forward to is the eventual fan-edit. After the third one comes out, some enterprising person will take the bloated 9 hours of cinematic release, then (1) cut out anything or anyone that didn't appear in the book, and (2) cut every fight/chase scene in half. You'll end up with a perfectly watchable, engaging film that clocks in around 2:45.

Re:Too long

[Culture20]

If [your sweatshirt] is stolen, when you return someone will likely be in your seat

wearing your sweatshirt. Thieves are pretty brazen these days.

Re:Too long

[CastrTroy]

I think that the "decline of quality in movie audiences" is either non-existent, because movies for the most part, have been one of the cheaper forms of entertainment, at least when compared to live performances so you end up with a good cross section of the public at the movies, or the problem could easily be solved with assigned seating, which is already provided in some theaters anyway. Every time there's an option, I'll easily pay the few extra dollars for the show that offers assigned seating, because I don't have to show up ridiculously early to get a good seat, and the seats and theater itself are usually of better quality anyway. If theaters want to survive in the age where people have 7.1 setups with 60+ inch screens at home, they are going to have to offer a very good experience, something that's worth paying the extra money for. Getting to see the movie before it's available for rental, by itself, isn't enough incentive.

Re:Too long

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Stuttgart when Fellowship came out. There was an intermission right before they talked about the Sword that Was Broken. 15 minutes to grab another beer.

Re:Too long

[phorm]

Personal opinion: It was somewhat more interesting than the previous. It had less filler, but still enough that you can realize how they're stretching it out to make three movies out of a single book (vs 3 movies for 3 books with LOTR).

Did my part

[rjejr]

All 3 seasons of GoT back in April. Saw both Hobbit movies in theaters though, full New York prices, sorry. I'm not DLing "epic" feature films to watch on my tv, GoT is on tv regardless. If it was on Hulu or NF I'ld watch GoT that way. Can I get HBOgo w/o HBO yet?

Pirated?

[Toshito]

I sometimes download episodes I missed from tv series. Now they would call that pirating but seriously, what's the difference between recording it myself and watching it later, or having someone else record it, and I me downloading it and watching it later? I will not watch the ads anyway...

If having someone else record the show for me is pirating, does that mean that if I ask my neighbour to come to my house and start the recording of the show while I'm not home a form of pirating?

I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Anonymous Coward]

I desperately want to give HBO my money. I sincerely do. I love Game of Thrones. Unfortunately, I don't have cable TV (just netflix, itunes, etc). I've looked into every option to buy Game of Thrones and give HBO my money. I've looked into HBOGo (their online streaming service), but unfortunately it requires an HBO subscription. I've looked into buying just HBO through my cable company, but unfortunately they won't allow that without buying a full cable TV package for $80 a month minimum. I've looked into buying it through itunes Australia since it was released early there, but unfortunately I can't without an Australian credit card and address.

I can't be the only one in this situation. It seems like HBO is trying to desperately cling to the old fashioned cable TV model where you have to be tied to a subscription cable service. We all know that model is dieing off with the older population. Hopefully in short time their attitudes will change.

Re: I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there are frustrating contracts involved here, going back decades

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Anonymous Coward]

in the USA most cable companies will offer very basic TV packages with HBO on top of it for $15 - $20 per month more. in the USA HBO costs close to $20 per month.

and in the USA you don't have to have a CC to buy from itunes. you can buy gift cards almost everywhere and add them to your account to buy stuff on itunes

Re: I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Anonymous Coward]

I called to cancel TV yesterday. They offered me local channels plus HBO for $19. Given all the series I watch and the convenience of HBOGO, I took it. Comcast kept a customer by understanding that's all I was after.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money

[CubicleZombie]

Last time I was forced to play Comcast's threaten-to-cancel-so-I-can-keep-my-promo-price game, I somehow ended up with a year of HBO. It's the biggest "meh" I've experienced in entertainment. There is never anything on I'm interested in. And it's not even in HD. There's like 800 channels of useless sports in glorious high definition and then HBO in low res.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Anonymous Coward]

I desperately want to give HBO my money. I sincerely do. I love Game of Thrones. Unfortunately, I don't have cable TV (just netflix, itunes, etc). I've looked into every option to buy Game of Thrones and give HBO my money. I've looked into HBOGo (their online streaming service), but unfortunately it requires an HBO subscription. I've looked into buying just HBO through my cable company, but unfortunately they won't allow that without buying a full cable TV package for $80 a month minimum. I've looked into buying it through itunes Australia since it was released early there, but unfortunately I can't without an Australian credit card and address.

I can't be the only one in this situation. It seems like HBO is trying to desperately cling to the old fashioned cable TV model where you have to be tied to a subscription cable service. We all know that model is dieing off with the older population. Hopefully in short time their attitudes will change.

Buy the fucking DVDs then, you idiot. If you want first run content, you have to subscribe. You don't like that since you feel like its not worth the cost, but it turns out that "i don't feel its worth the cost" holds up in court when you steal something.

Trolling out of the way, I totally agree that with the infrastructure available online there is no reason why direct digital distribution cant run just as well (and net HBO more money) than the old fashioned way with piece of shit QAM signals running around on coaxial cables.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money

[jedidiah]

The problem with "doing the right thing" is that you've likely forgotten about it but the time that the industry finally gets around to accommodating you.

I did this with a TV series I actually bought. By the time I finally watched it, it had gotten to Netflix by then. Felt a little silly really.

The LAST thing that American corporations want is for consumers to learn how to engage in self-deprivation. Screeching Puritans are pretty irrelevant in this regard. The "victim" here cares about hard currency. Notions of "crime and punishment" are likely the furthest thing from their minds.

Smug moral superiority doesn't pay the bills.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Cereal Box]

These are the arguments I hate the most from the pro-piracy camp. You obviously aren't desperate enough to give HBO your money since you have multiple options:

1. Upgrade your cable package to get HBO. Pricey, but if you're truly desperate, there you go.
2. Purchase through iTunes. You won't get it immediately as it airs, but you'll get it.
3. Buy the Blu-Rays when they come out. Same drawback as point 2, but it's an option.

I think what you mean is that you're desperate to watch the show first run for a price that you consider reasonable (I'm guessing something in the neighborhood of $10 or less). Doesn't work that way.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Culture20]

I wouldn't feel silly about that. When netflix finally goes under you'll still own the TV series. (unless you "bought" it as a rental flash movie from the original distributor.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money

[Anonymous Coward]

Those options don't apply if I don't live in any USA jurisdiction. There is no "HBO cable" to upgrade to, any other alternative is months slower than piracy : at best, that is. Sometimes years slower.

If they want people to pay for it they should make it Legally Possible for people to pay for it. Anything else is utter stupidity. At least netflix and HBO have realized this and FINALLY launched legal services in my home country.

Added note: I was once hired but quit working for an American company because I got the fuck tired of the obsoletely bureaucratic copyright machinery that prohibits people to use services legally.

As the pirates have shown us: the technology is all ready for fast, usable, pricey services but the whole system is dragged down by all the fucking middle men wanting their piece of the cake in the frustratingly slow copyright system.

(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[LoRdTAW]

Simple solution: Stop hiding your TV shows and films behind a wall of artificial scarcity. We have the internet which gives us instant access to whatever we want whenever we want. That has spoiled us and you (studios) haven't capitalized on this yet or are too damn slow.

Put your film in theaters. Once it is no longer profitable at the box office then put it on youtube (not some proprietary bullshit site that only runs in IE or some other nonsense) for a discounted rate and allow multiple viewings. Don't rent me a fucking film for $2.99 and then only give me access for a few days at most. That is a rip off. Let me pay a few bucks for a month or two or three. Honestly how much money will you lose if you let people have the movie for three months? How many times in one month is someone going to watch a movie? This is especially important for childrens shows/movies where they might want to watch it a hundred times.

TV shows, do what South Park does: Release the episode on both TV and the internet AT THE SAME TIME! Put a few commercials in there just like a regular TV episode and people will watch it. Or give them the option to pay a cheap monthly or yearly fee to watch commercial free. Id pay southpark studios a few bucks a month to watch their shows if I could see them all commercial free. If you are a premium show like Game of Thrones then do the same damn thing but for a fee. Let me watch an episode for a dollar and let me have access for a month or more. Or let me pay a few dollars to watch as many episodes as I would like for a month or so.

People have enough of a burden trying to pay bills/make a living and you expect us to spend hundreds on cable TV, tickets and DVD/BR *every month*. No thanks, we have better things to spend our money on. Your content is simply a time waster when we want to relax for a bit or go out every now and then. We dont need it and I am not willing to pay the exorbitant amount demanded. Adapt or die.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[superdude72]

$2.99 to rent a film for 3 days is a fucking rip off? You lost me there. I would add, the timer on the three-day period doesn't start until you start watching the movie (on Amazon, at least.) You have a month to start watching the movie.

And if the kids are going to watch Despicable Me (for instance) hundreds of times, yes, the studios and distributor clearly *would* lose money by not offering a "buy" vs "rent" scenario. $10 to stream Despicable Me (in SD) as many times as you want! Now clearly this is a value judgment. I can't tell you you're wrong for how you feel about that. But clearly, a lot of people find that reasonable. As someone who lived through the '80s and '90s, and paid $4 to rent a VHS tape at Blockbuster, then often paid an extra $2 a day in late fees on top of that, I find it a hell of a deal. To me, it's not worth pirating a movie to save $2.99.

A bit of a digression though. The issue with Game of Thrones is that you *can't* stream recent episodes for a fee. You have to have a costly cable subscription. Different kettle of fish, which is why the show is so pirated.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[Anonymous Coward]

>$2.99 to rent a film for 3 days is a fucking rip off?
Yes, it is.

>And if the kids are going to watch Despicable Me (for instance) hundreds of times, yes, the studios and distributor clearly *would* lose money by not offering a "buy" vs "rent" scenario. $10 to stream Despicable Me (in SD) as many times as you want
See. the nice thing about kids, of which I have three, is that you can point them at NetFlix and let them watch another show/movie instead of the one that costs $10/ I pay $8/month and consider most shows, especially for my kids, as fungible. Since the oldest is happy with Ultimate Spiderman, Super Hero Squad, etc, I see 0 reason to buy other shows. Now, if those were yanked, I'd have to consider finding new ones. But the point stands. $3/movie is far too much when $8 gets you access to hundreds of movies you can watch anytime you want.

Re: (DRAMATIC SIGH)

[Scowler]

Wow, even throwing a toddler's tantrum will get you modded up around here, if it's related to piracy demands. Apparently you became grossly self-entitled and "spoiled" through no fault of your own, eh?

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[brit74]

Simple solution: Stop hiding your TV shows and films behind a wall of artificial scarcity.

So, the solution you're proposing to studios is "give everything away for free!!" Yeah, that sounds like a great solution. Seriously, does anyone on Slashdot think about the needs and desires of the studios, or are all "solutions" really just kneejerk strategies which result in consumers getting as much stuff as possible while paying nothing?

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[swillden]

$2.99 to rent a film for 3 days is a fucking rip off?

It's not so much that it's a ripoff, but that it deters rentals. It's just a stupid business practice.

I often decide not to rent something when browsing because I'm not sure I have time to watch it before the rental period expires. I may or may not ever stumble across it again later when looking for something to watch. Give me multi-month access for $3, and I'll rent stuff on a whim. Make it viewable multiple times, and I'll rent even more, because I may rent stuff that I think I'm only marginally interested in but my family might want to see.

On the other side, what's the potential loss? I've been renting movies in various formats for 30 years. I don't believe I have ever, in that entire time, rented a movie and then rented it again within a few months. If I have done it, it's definitely only been a very small number of times, a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of times I've rented. I don't think I'm unusual in this. So, shutting off access after a few days, or a single viewing, is not going to extract another rental fee from me.

Back when I was renting physical media, there was a clear purpose for the short rental periods. They needed the tape or DVD back so they could rent it to someone else. With streaming media that issue is gone. The cost of streaming a movie to me is negligible, and there is no limit to the number of people they can rent to simultaneously. So if the content owner's goal is, as would seem logical, to extract the maximum possible amount of money from viewers, they should allow repeat viewings (which will hardly ever be used) and long rental periods -- not long enough that rental can be confused with purchase, but long enough that people don't have to think about whether they'll have time to watch it before the period expires.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[MtViewGuy]

Here's the problem: HBO has very expensive carriage right deals with the major cable companies and satellite providers in the USA, deals that are very lucrative to HBO itself. If HBO were to make HBO Go no longer needing proof of a cable subscription, that will effectively kill that gigantic revenue stream and HBO will obviously not have the money to do shows like "Game of Thrones."

It will take essentially an antitrust lawsuit to change this picture.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[LoRdTAW]

Okay, hold on here. Where did I say free? Honestly if you are going to write a rebuttal please actually read the comment you are responding to and not just the first sentence. I said either fund it with commercials like South Park or offer a one time fee for a more reasonable limited viewing period.

Re: (DRAMATIC SIGH)

[LoRdTAW]

The point is this:
The internet has changed the world. No longer is information scarce. You used to have to go to the library to find informations and books. Now its at your fingertips in the comfort of your own home. Maybe the kids going online to do research for their report are spoiled too? The Movie studios could benefit from instant on-demand delivery by offering a wider selection to a wider audience. But they have so far refused to make any major effort. They make far too much money by making their content scarce which to me makes no sense in this modern internet connected world.

Apparently you became grossly self-entitled and "spoiled" through no fault of your own, eh?

Please, tell me how I am spoiled when the Studios are ignoring the Internet which can open the floodgates to their content and allow people to view programs and movies as they see fit? Why should I be forced to pay insane amounts of money for a premium TV service that I don't really care about. I had HBO and let me tell you this: its worthless. The movie selection was terrible at any given time and its on demand barely offered anything I was interested in. Its 2014 and I still have to buy a plastic disc to watch a movie or pay $15 a month to watch game of thrones and a bunch of crappy movies? I realize Netflix and others are getting better but their content masters are still holding onto an ancient business model that is causing people to flock to alternative methods to find what they want. Yea some people just don't want to pay but I WOULD HAPPILY PAY if I could watch it on a device of my choosing whenever and wherever I want.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[LoRdTAW]

I too grew up going to the video store. In fact the parents of a close friend of mine used to own one down the block. FREE RENTALS! Those were the days.

But getting back to the $2.99 price, I look at it from the point of viewing time. Its 2014 and we are still stuck with an artificial, video store time limit. There is no physical tape or disc to return which makes sense for a video store who want to give other customers a fair chance to rent the video. The video store has a limited number of copies for rent. Remember when it was only 1 copy for most movies, before blockbuster? The internet can in theory stream a video to an unlimited number of viewers (assuming no bandwidth limits). So the video store model is just idiotic to impose on an internet delivery system. 15-20 bucks gets me a physical copy I can watch unlimited times but 3 bucks gets me only 3 days online? A dollar a day? This is why I say three days is insane. Give me a month or two. Maybe one weekend I want to watch with a friend and the next week or so with girlfriend.

Re: (DRAMATIC SIGH)

[Scowler]

Yeah, the wonderful "Internet" has lowered distribution costs of media, but production and marketing costs are higher than ever. In other words, Hollywood still needs "scarce" revenue models, regardless the fact that it's composed of all for-profit corporations in the first place, just to maintain its existing level of production standards. Now, nobody is forcing you to consume anything they make. You can buy nothing if you like. But recognize your whine is really short-sighted when looking at the whole media ecosystem at large.

Re: (DRAMATIC SIGH)

[LoRdTAW]

But recognize your whine is really short-sighted when looking at the whole media ecosystem at large.

Still sticking those little insulting jabs in there.

I still stand by my argument and say the studios should adapt to newer methods of content delivery. They can reach their audience directly and let them choose how to view all while still lining their pockets with millions in profit. Its win-win and everyone is happy. If HBO was on Netflix they could have prevented most of the piracy. And they should also realize people in other countries also want to take part in the hype a show has generated. Making them wait months or a year or more for new episodes after they have aired in the US also fosters piracy.

Re: (DRAMATIC SIGH)

[Scowler]

Netflix streaming business model is low cost, sub-prime content for sub-prime pricing. How much would you be willing to pay for all-you-can-eat buffet for all prime content available on iTunes / Blu-Ray? I'm guessing no distributor could make that profitable at less than $75 a month. And that's not primarily padding the wallets of fat cats, it's primarily paying the average Joe's who are the bulk of the Hollywood labor force, as well as all the Netflix-style IT costs.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[mcgrew]

$2.99 to rent a film for 3 days is a fucking rip off?

Yes, it is. You can outright buy DVDs for five bucks. Family Video rents DVDs and blu-rays for a buck and you can keep them for a week. I think the RedBox kiosks are the same.

The $3.32 per gallon at Shell is also a ripoff, it was $3.02 at a gas station across town the day before yesterday. Fucking thieves everywhere and you people gladly let them defraud you.

As someone who lived through the '80s and '90s, and paid $4 to rent a VHS tape at Blockbuster

That was back when the minimum purchase price for a movie was a hundred bucks. They're between $5 and $20 now, 3/5ths of the purchase price for a three day rental is fraud.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[antdude]

Aren't new South Park episodes posted right after west coast air its episodes on ComedyCentral (10:30 PM PT)?

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH)

[AmiMoJo]

People have a finite amount of money to spend. Either you try to fleece them and get nothing (second hand shops, piracy, waiting for it to be free on TV and skipping the commercials) or you charge a fair price and get some custom.

Here's Why

[rmdingler]

A latecomer to the Thrones saga, I purchased the first two seasons in November of this year. I fell for the palace intrigue immediately, watched the first two seasons in a couple of weekends, and then discovered the 3rd, already filmed and telecast, season (with the friggin' dragon on the cover) isn't available until the middle of February.

Are they 3D printing the CDs or what?

Re:Here's Why

[behrooz0az]

I feel i've wasted my modpoints. I've should have seen this a bit sooner.

Re:Here's Why

[behrooz0az]

I've

Grammar natzis inbound...

Re:Here's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the spelling Nazis won't be far behind!

Re:Here's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

natzis

Spelling Nazis inbound.

Re:Here's Why

[DarthVain]

The same reason why it took like 3 years for the last Game Thrones book to come out in softcover rather than hardcover. It isn't like there was some sort of shortage, or production problem. It is because they want to sell you more hardcovers which cost 3 times as much. Myself I refuse. Even now that it is out, I am thinking of waiting til it comes out in a used book store. I was that pissed at how they handled it (two released dates delayed) when it was obvious they are just being dicks about the whole thing.

All the old media models do this.

Re: Here's Why

[Scowler]

Is it so terrible to wait until February? It's not like you'll ever be more than one season behind. I love the show, but I don't mind waiting myself.

Re: Here's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

or coulld just wait for the syndicated version to run on air in five years

Re:Here's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

The books are pretty shitty. HBO is doing a much better job than GRRM is. I've decided to stop buying his paper-waste and just watch the TV version. He has a great plot and world, but can't write.

Re:Here's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

ASoF&I is the kind of series you want in hardcover though, to pass down to your children.

Re:Here's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

My grammar? She's no Nazi!!

It's HBO's Fault....

[Anonymous Coward]

I begged them to take my money; I would have gladly paid for an HBO subscription. They refused to take my money, unless I put a f**king Comcast box in my house! Maybe, one of these days (if we live long enough) the entertainment industry may even finally get the message!

Then again, they're the entertainment industry, and all have their heads firmly and well placed up their asses!

Makes perfect sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Those living in a fantasy land find it pretty easy to conjure up a reason why stealing content is perfectly ok. "Tyrion Lannister would do it!" sheesh

Re:Makes perfect sense

[jedidiah]

> Those living in a fantasy land find it pretty easy to conjure up a reason why stealing content is perfectly ok. "Tyrion Lannister would do it!" sheesh

More than 200 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with your notion that copying is some sort of crime.

Re:Makes perfect sense

[zlives]

just a counter point, back then people made things for money, now we copy things for money. the economy has changed and the rules changed with it. However i think its time for the rules to change yet again.

Please prove that statement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Put up an alternative world where they weren't pirated and prove your claim.

But if you can't prove your claim, please retract it because the evidence we have is that they aren't losing money.

Re:Please prove that statement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Put up an alternative world where they weren't pirated and prove your claim.

But if you can't prove your claim, please retract it because the evidence we have is that they aren't losing money.

Just because they had high profits didn't mean they didn't "lose" money (in the sense of potential income) and couldn't have made more. If they made, for sake of argument, $1 per movie, and sold 500,000 DVDs one year, which happened to be more than the previous years, they made $500,000, and this would count as record profits; however, 100,000 movies were pirated and (assume) never paid for, which means they **would** have made $600,000, so, net assumed loss, $100,000.
Congress works this same way with budgeting: i.e. the budget for social services, or the military, is slated to increase, say, 4% each year, but after a new act is enacted, it is changed to just a 2% increase for the next year or two; congress will then declare (either proudly or lamentably) that the budget was "cut" for the program, when in fact, it's just a decrease in the increase, not a net subtraction.

I put "assume" of course because there are assumptions in place. I've downloaded DVDs before because the DVD wasn't released yet (example case, "Cars") and my little boy loved the movie, and there was no way I was getting back out to theatre 3 times a week. When the DVD was finally released, I immediately ran out and bought the DVD, so, no money lost to Disney/Pixar there. But this isn't always the case; if ones argues that people always buy what they initially pirate, you are being, at best, disingenuous. If you claim they would not have bought it anyway, you are again disingenuous; some might not have, but some may have and now figure they don't have to bother. If you never intended to watch or listen to something if it weren't free, then why do you feel entitled to watch or listen to it?

OTOH, the media corporations are exaggerating their losses. As usual, the truth lies a little in the middle somewhere.

They should USE pirates

[RobertLTux]

maybe they could put in the metadata a "shop" url and then some sort of serial number so that folks that have been screaming

PLEASE TAKE MY MONEY!!! can actually do so.

Besides nowadays everybody knows that a movie with less than say 4 torrents SUCKS BADLY (after say a week from release)

Yes and No

[rsilvergun]

Life is stressful, and for many entertainment is a valve for that stress. It's not that poor people downloading the Hobbit or Game of Thrones are causing a loss of sale on one or the other, it's that with a little bit of that stress relived they're much less likely to make a snap purchase (which they can't afford) to relieve that stress.

When add the fact that one or two players in the economy owns all the media and that corporate profits by and large go to 1% of the populace then the **AA's of the world's stance makes sense. It doesn't matter _what_ you buy, they make money either way. But they need you _ready_ to buy.

Let me put it this way: If you want chicken but you've got steak, odds are good you'll settle for chicken. If you've got neither I can sell you chicken.

Fantasy Lads

[scarboni888]

Yeah well they're living in a fantasy land if they think they're going to keep on getting away with it! Article 4.2 of the TPPA is coming to an ISP near them soon! Then we'll see whose fantasy we're living in.

Re:Fantasy Lads

[jedidiah]

Yes. Because that is exactly what American Corporations need: a population that's adept at limiting their consumption.

or consider this

[jollyreaper]

Netflix is undergoing another content purge. I'm perfectly willing to pay for the service. There are some movies I never got around to watching that are disappearing. Oh, well. I'll have to pirate them then.

It's important to note how my viewing habits have changed.

Before the Internet: Tape from live TV, borrow from the library, Blockbuster

After the Internet: Tape from live TV for broadcast shows, watch crummy encodes of anime leeched from napster and other early p2p services, would buy reasonable sets of DVD's for material I love and will be rewatching.

After Bittorrent: All BT, all the time

After Netflix Streaming: Is it on Netflix? No? Ok, now start searching torrents.

I've gotten away from buying physical media because I don't have the space for it. I do want to reward the creators, I just don't have a proper means to do so. Here's the kicker: Netflix is MORE convenient than piracy. For a small fee, I have shows on my TV, laptop, phone, tablet, and they all stay in sync. I don't have to remember my watchlist. Hell, for TV downloads I keep a text file in the directory that I update after I'm done watching so I don't lose my place. That's less convenient than Netflix.

I'm happy to pay for a service that's timely and reasonable. I'm not waiting six months if the shit's done and released elsewhere. I'm also not paying a bajillion dollars because some executive's wife needs new tits.

Re: or consider this

[Scowler]

In other words, you don't respect any of the content you're viewing or the people who produced it.

Re:or consider this

[Whorhay]

There was a period as a young single adult where I torrented movies constantly and probably watched a couple at least every night. Now I just use Netflix for most of my passive entertainment. The only stuff I find myself torrenting is regular network TV shows that we get too far behind on watching. I'd really like to watch GoT but I'm not going to buy a cable subscription and pay a premium price for special channels for one or two shows of interest. So for now I just don't watch it at all or wait for it to show up on Netflix.

Re: or consider this

[lgw]

For books and for CDs, there are fine stores for digital versions of the content. It's easy to pay if you want to (but won't buy any more physical media). For DVDs, the digital alternatives are just crap, and it's damn hard to pay if you want to (but won't buy any more physical media). The MPAA needs to get with the times.

Game of Thrones

[Anonymous Coward]

hah, the first time I saw the name Game of Thrones I thought it was a fantasy MMORPG for Windows. Later I found out it is a TV show on HBO. Guess I need to get out more. lol

Re:Game of Thrones

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a series of books long before the HBO show... maybe you should read more too

Arrrrrr!

[hyades1]

I be a pirate, mateys!

I paid thirty bucks a pop so my girlfriend and I could see The Hobbit in 3D...twice. That's $120 right there, spent gladly, without a moment's hesitation.

Last night another $60 went into the pockets of the movie industry when we went to see Part 2. We're going to go back again...that will raise the total to $240.

And I have absolutely no doubt we'll see Part 3 when it comes out...probably twice AGAIN. That will mean that off just one guy of average means, the movie industry will have made $360 for what is essentially ONE story.

So if I had downloaded Part 1 without paying AGAIN so we could refresh our memories before going to Part 2, I'd be a "pirate"? I'd have to worry that the industry and their tame douche nozzles in the MPAA would be all over my lily-white bum?

Screw them. If there's ever a way I can legally stick it to them, I'll do it laughing. I wish them ill. To the conscienceless greedoids putting honest, paying customers into situations like this, I hope their lives that turn into ugly, painful battles for survival. I truly, deeply detest them.

Ultimately just how much of this kind of rancor do those arrogant, greedy bastards think they can create before average people the hammer on them once and for all?

Netflix DOES have Game of Thrones

[Scowler]

Netflix does carry GoT, that's how I watched the first two seasons of it. I will watch the third season as well once they get it.

ibtimes? why not link to TorrentFreak?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, why not link to the original source TorrentFreak - which covers the top pirated movies every week - instead of IB Times' report of the report?

Statement pulled from where, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is clearly losing money for both industries

I added the bold part, and to that entire sentence, I can only say "lolwut" in order to properly express my opinion of the validity of the original statement.

Both productions sell like crazy. The theatres are full with movie-goers watching The Hobbit, part deux. Boxes with Game of Thrones fly off the shelves in most stores I've seen it available in.

The media industry is breaking its own records, regularly.

We, the people, spend more of our disposable income on media and entertainment than ever before.

In short:

Who the fuck do they think is believing their blathering about any made-up losses?

I haven't spent as much money on entertainment ever before, and I do pirate a bit. If I pirated less, I'd spend less, since I've discovered more stuff that way than I would otherwise have done. I can't possibly spend more, since I don't have more disposable income available for entertainment purposes than I already spend.

Do they want imaginary money to cover for their imaginary losses, I wonder?

At least it would be consistent...

I'm reminded of South Park here.

[Virtucon]

Butters complaining about "Floppy Penises" and "Where's the Dragons?!?" when talking about Game of Thrones. Of course Martin didn't order the pizzas and said that they would be coming and be the best! Oh and there would be five of them! An analogy of the dragons in GoT. Best three South Park Episodes ever!

Backwards Logic: Who sells what to whom?

[DutchUncle]

TV shows are not made to entertain people. They are made to gather people in front of a particular station, at a particular time, so that they become an "audience" (perhaps with a particular "demographic"), during which time the station SELLS YOUR EYEBALLS to advertisers. The "scarcity" model is not artificial; it is a crucial component of maintaining the novelty of the show so that it can be used as bait again to gather more eyeballs for more advertisements.

Once something is available on DVD (or, now, for streaming), it is automatically less valuable for re-runs, because everyone who wants to see it has already had the ability to see it whenever they want, instead of the once-a-year that "seasonal favorites" were released when I was a kid (and you HAD to be in front of the TV when it was on, because there was no home VCR to time-shift it). (Disney manages to suppress their content for years between releases, making scarcity itself a product.) Plus the producers cannot sell new advertisements; they had to make one-time deals even for "coming attractions" on the disk (out-of-date within a year, and therefore often of value only to the same producer), and certainly had to make a one-time deal for the cost of selling the material in physical form. No wonder they prefer the pay-per-view jukebox model.

Remember: In the video industry, if you can't see the product they are selling, it's YOU.

Re:Backwards Logic: Who sells what to whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post does not apply to HBO since it doesn't have advertisements.

Personal example

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. As an example, I downloaded Cloud Atlas one day because I was curious about it do to watching a preview in a movie theater. I liked the movie so much that I went out and bought the bluray almost immediately. I did this because I wanted to support the type of daring film making this movie represents. I know many other people who do the same for every other piece of entertainment you can think of. I don't identify as a pirate but if they wish to label me as such, arrr so be it!

[Citation Needed]

[brit74]

> "the US box office doesn't seem to be suffering too much as it is about to record its best year ever."
Source? (I remember the last time I saw that claim on Slashdot, and discovered it was wrong.)

No HBO without CNN/HLN/TBS/TNT

[tepples]

Other Time Warner-owned networks to which one must subscribe before becoming allowed to subscribe to HBO, namely CNN, HLN, TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Netwoork, have commercials.

Wrong approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Once a TV show has been produced I'll download it without even a bad conscience.

But if you crowd sourced production I would have happily paid 50+ bucks to make the next season of Breaking Bad materialize more quickly.

Doesn't need to be free

[Overzeetop]

but it does need to be easy and available. Why don't I have netflix and hulu? Little islands of content. Give me everything, let me cache it locally, charge me a nominal fee, send the money to what ever I watch (wtf do I care if anonymized data is sent out). I use sickbeard/couch potato/sabnzbd and pay probably $180 a year and spend much more than that in my time to get whatever I want, playable just about whenever and however I want. I'd pay more for live streaming of ESPN (for example) and NFL if it were available - but it isn't!

Oh, and I own at least 80% of whats on my server as physical media purchased at retail. *shrug* HAving them delivered automatically is just better.

They would probably see more if...

[LongearedBat]

HBO would probably sell much more of Game of Thrones if they didn't wait so damned long to release it on BluRay. Season 3 still cannot be purchased, and it was months since it was released.

If they can coordinate the massive undertaking of making such a series, filming episodes in parallel, then they can coordinate the making of the discs in parallel.

Their only reasoning must be "releasing just before the next season starts will whet their appetites", but what they don't realise in all their marketing "genius" is that they miss out on capitalising on the temporary hype they've just built up, plus they miss out on xmas sales.

People will return for the next season, something that they should have learnt by now.

I paid for it

[DrStoooopid]

I watched it twice in the theatre at $13 a pop or greater, they can go screw themselves.

I contributed to their box-office sales, they can blow me.