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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:54AM from the there's-a-fast-and-furious-six?! dept.

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."

20 of 193 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Clearly losing money? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 01:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

... and then stating their high profits?
Okay. Explain. How are they "clearly losing money"? Prove it.
1. Re:Clearly losing money? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-31 02:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Clearly losing money? by tbuddy · 2013-12-31 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Clearly losing money? by P-niiice · 2013-12-31 02:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:Clearly losing money? by pmontra · 2013-12-31 02:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Clearly losing money? by gmuslera · 2013-12-31 02:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:Clearly losing money? by CastrTroy · 2013-12-31 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
7. Re:Clearly losing money? by lennier1 · 2013-12-31 02:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The same logic by which the NSA all but shoving a microphone up your ass has prevented trillions of terrorist attacks!
8. Re:Clearly losing money? by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-12-31 03:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  relevent comic here:
  http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5713890_700b_v2.jpg
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
9. Re:Clearly losing money? by evilRhino · 2013-12-31 03:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Clearly losing money? by bzipitidoo · 2013-12-31 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
11. Re:Clearly losing money? by Nyder · 2013-12-31 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
12. Re:Clearly losing money? by lgw · 2013-12-31 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
13. Re: Clearly losing money? by JudgeFurious · 2013-12-31 07:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:Bullshit by MBGMorden · 2013-12-31 02:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
(DRAMATIC SIGH) by LoRdTAW · 2013-12-31 02:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Here's Why by rmdingler · 2013-12-31 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Bullshit by wvmarle · 2013-12-31 02:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Kjella · 2013-12-31 02:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Bullshit by the_other_chewey · 2013-12-31 02:59 · Score: 4, Informative

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?