

Pirates? Hollywood Sets $10+ Billion Box Office Record  - cyphersanctus
http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-hollywood-sets-10-billion-box-office-record-121231/

======
rkalla
This same pattern plays out in so many different places.

1\. Massive concentration of power (in this case, the entertainment industry.
I think 5 corporations control 96% of commercial media [2] - TV/Movie/etc.)

2\. Artificially powerful threat (in this case "pirates") always JUST about to
destroy/harm/impact/irreparably damage #1.

3\. #1 is justified in fighting a war on #2 -- physically, legally,
financially, whatever.

4\. For all intents and purposes, the stronger #2 (the "threat") seems, the
easier job #1 has justifying ANY recourse. If #2 (the threat) isn't that
strong on its own, I would imagine it be in the best interest of #1 to make it
appear so and even help bolster it if necessary.

5\. There is so much rhetoric, confusion, mix-facts, misreporting and fuzzy
data being seeded and organically produced on the topic of "#1 vs #2" that it
is impossible to cleanly and clearly make heads or tales of any of it -- well
#1 has a point, but so does #2, but #2 is doing something illegal, but #1 is
also doing illegal things... ad infinitum.

6\. #1 continues to pump energy and complexity into #5 which engages, exhausts
and overwhelms us until it becomes noise and we learn to tune it out. Think of
a person standing in the middle of New York as opposed to the middle of a corn
field -- our brains are wired to tune out repetitive audio and visual queues
-- we are tuned to spot differentiation. #1 doesn't have to _hide_ anything
per se, it just needs to amplify it and muddy the noise enough that it becomes
repetitive.

There are examples of this same strategy played out over and over and over
again all over the world in all nooks and crannies of our lives - oil,
pharmaceuticals, electronics, governments, publishers, music, farming/food,
etc.

I would expect this strategy is as old as mud, probably starting with its
roots in false-flag[1] campaigns in the annals of history, but it works and it
has been refined and continues to work -- just like the format for romantic
comedy movies continues to work even though we've seen it 100,000 times and
the format for super-hero movies works.

We are incredibly manipulatable. Our convictions are disturbingly fragile and
the worst part of it is that most of us are lead to believe exactly the
opposite and completely reject the possibility that they are.

I think _that_ is what makes us so susceptible to this type engineering and
why it is so successful.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag>

[2]
[http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign//post-i...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign//post-
inline/IllusionofChoice-1.jpeg)

~~~
GHFigs
You're buying into and regurgitating the myth that the world reduces into
"good vs. evil" and that the difficulty involved in making sense of what's
going on is not because the world is inherently complex but because somebody
is pulling the wool over your eyes. "Wake up, sheeple!"

I mean, really: if you're going to come so close to having a clue, why not
just take that one extra step? Why does it always have to come back to
declaring indifference a sin foist upon people by the Great Satan of the week?

~~~
rkalla
It's a good point and unfortunately one I figured would get confused with what
I wrote so I hummed and hawed about writing anything.

I don't think you can distill the world down into "Good vs Evil" -- it would
be easier if you could.

What I _do_ think is that power has an innate tendency to protect itself and
concentrate and the mechanisms by which it does this _anywhere_ are all
strikingly similar -- i.e. if you put them all in a pot and boiled off the
water, you would maybe 3-5 different ways for doing this.

------
Apocryphon
The problem with film piracy isn't box office records- blockbusters will
always generate great revenue, and this year was one full of blockbusters.

The problem is that independent filmmakers are hit harder by piracy than the
blockbusters. And piracy causes Hollywood studios to be less likely to back
indie films, causing them to instead favor low hanging fruit, projects with
mass appeal that will generate the most revenue regardless of piracy, instead
of independent projects that may be more bold and creative, but would have
more to lose from piracy. See here:

[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/business/la-fi-ct-
fi...](http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/business/la-fi-ct-film-
pirate-20100928)

~~~
bencoder
That's not always the case. For example, the independent movie "The Man From
Earth", gained a lot of attention that it otherwise wouldn't have, due to
piracy, leading to the producer thanking the pirates:

[http://torrentfreak.com/producer-thanks-pirates-for-
stealing...](http://torrentfreak.com/producer-thanks-pirates-for-stealing-his-
film-071113/)

~~~
option_greek
That's one movie really worth watching :)

------
mootothemax
I'd love to know why movies are so incredibly expensive on iTunes, and whether
anyone's experimented with pricing movies at €5 rather than the current price
of €12+.

At 5 Euro, for me the price is an instant purchase, no thinking necessary. Not
so at €12 or more.

I hope it's not the case, but I wonder whether there are so few people that
pay for movies at _any_ price that the studios have concluded it's just not
worth it, and so keep the higher prices. Or, alternatively, there are enough
people that _do_ buy at the €12 point, again not making it worth the time to
lower the price.

In conclusion: trying to work out pricing points hurts my head.

~~~
sjs382
I agree.

I "rent" 3-4 movies using Amazon Instant Video every month at ~$5 per pop.
Every time I do, I think "do I _really_ want to spend $5 on this?" and I'll
often just go watch whatever is recommended on Netflix (or if it's just me,
SportsCenter) instead. $2 is definitely the "instant rental" price point for
me.

And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me
one price and the best quality version that you can.

(For reference, I use a Roku)

~~~
corin_
> _And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give
> me one price and the best quality version that you can._

Why not? Are you happier if they instead say "Rent for $4.99" and nothing
else?

Most products come in multiple price points, do you also dislike the fact that
there are cheap/expensive models of computers, cars, TVs...

~~~
sjs382
I would, yes. As it stands, I only see the lowest price for each movie (and
I'm not interested in this lower price). I'm only interested in the "HD"
price, and getting to that info takes an extra click to the movie's info
screen (and then I need to go back to the listing screen once I've seen it).

This might sound like "white people problems" but it's annoying and hurts the
experience.

~~~
corin_
The entire subject is somewhat "first world problems", so ignore that.

So really your issue is with UI, maybe they could allow you to change which
price point is shown to you? Because reducing down to a single price point,
sure it might be good in that they're playing less mind games, but if you end
up paying higher prices it surely isn't a good change.

------
velodrome
If Hollywood wants to make MORE money. Let me watch NEW movies at home.

Why at home?

1) Bathroom breaks

2) People's heads aren't in the way

3) No blurry screens

4) No crappy audio

5) Snacks I want

6) Quieter. No kids crying or cell phones, etc.

I am willing to spend the same price. I hate going to movie theater these
days... I just wait for the DVD (or Bluray).

~~~
CaveTech
The problem with this is they can't enforce the amount of people watching. It
could be just you or maybe you and 10 friends.

~~~
Luc
There is a technical solution to that, for example one based on the patent
mentioned here:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-
kinect-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-and-
mobile-cameras-to-count-people-in-your-living-room-2012-11)

EDIT: Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

~~~
CaveTech
Exactly what I want in my life. A way for companies to track me and my friends
inside my own home.

------
betterunix
When the RIAA and MPAA claim that their profits suffer from piracy, one should
be skeptical. People have been sharing files on the Internet for decades at
this point -- what kind of company can lose money for decades without going
bankrupt? There are industries that were bankrupted by the Internet, like the
film camera and development industry. The MPAA is just greedy, they always
have been; they are the ones stealing from artists:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting>

~~~
paulhauggis
"When the RIAA and MPAA claim that their profits suffer from piracy, one
should be skeptical. People have been sharing files on the Internet for
decades at this point -- what kind of company can lose money for decades
without going bankrupt?"

Both are not one company. They are multiple companies working together. They
didn't go out of business because they mostly changed with the new trends
(Songs can now be purchased for 99 cents and streamed, etc).

"The MPAA is just greedy"

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The MPAA may be greedy, but the
hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why they
shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement).

"they are the ones stealing from artists:"

Sigh. I'm tired of hearing this. Artists have many ways to promote their stuff
online. They don't have to sign a contract, but they choose to.

It's never been easy to make money as an artist...and piracy makes it even
more difficult (especially when you don't have the backing of a major label).

I guess they don't deserve to make a living...and instead entertain you to
your exact specifications.

~~~
Dylan16807
>the hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why
they shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement)

I don't know. If you want to separate 'greed' and 'entitlement' I would say
that someone pirating a dozen movies is certainly full of entitlement but I
wouldn't say they're any greedier than the person that buys the same dozen
movies.

------
cmircea
The MPAA & RIAA are blind. They'd make a LOT more money if buying the real
thing was easier than 1) spending time hunting for it online; 2) waiting for
it to download; and 3) if it weren't overpriced. Same for games. $60 for a
damn game? Valve's shown that $5 prices lead to massive increases in sales
over $20+.

~~~
twoodfin
I think you're oversimplifying. Millions of people line up to buy the latest
Call of Duty game at $60, but I don't think the market for those games
suddenly doubles if you sell it at $30. Especially when many of those $30
buyers were presumably already going to buy it at $30 anyway in a few months.

~~~
mootothemax
_I don't think the market for those games suddenly doubles if you sell it at
$30_

Don't forget the support costs as well; they end up with double the number of
people to support, but for the same amount of money.

~~~
joenathan
Steam has also shown that if the price is good enough many people will buy it
and then never play it.

------
codex
When adjusted for inflation, it's not a box office record; that honor belongs
to 2002:

[http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2386/annual-
revenu...](http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2386/annual-revenue-for-
film-industry-by-year-adjusted-for-inflation)

------
Tycho
That's just box office though, the more interesting figure is total revenue
including disc sales etc.

~~~
Zikes
And legal revenue, I'd love to see that.

------
mgkimsal
But think of how much _more_ they'd be making if we couldn't get the movie at
home and had to go to a theater to watch it.

I'm not even sure if I'm serious or sarcastic on this one.

------
alan_cx
So, what this is really about is not the destruction of the movie business and
western culture, its all about the movie business thinking its not making
enough money. It should be making more. Making great profit is not enough.
Thay must have more.

Well, me too. Can the government get behind that please?

------
synctext
"for the first time in history domestic box office grosses surpassed $10.7
billion"

As the article says, especially when taking inflation into account: The End Is
Near for Hollywood. All due to piracy.

~~~
30thElement
All due to piracy? If you look at the 10 top grossing films of 2012, we have:
3 comic book movies (The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Amazing
Spiderman) where the characters have already had several movies, 3 movies that
are either the 3rd or 4th in an original series (Madagascar, Ice Age, and
MiB), and 4 based on books (Twilight, Skyfall, The Hobbit, and Hunger Games).
Maybe people are tired of rehashes of the same IP over and over again,
especially when they spread one story over several movies, just to get more
money out of you? (I'm looking at you, The Hobbit)

~~~
Tycho
If your argument was valid, then the top 10 grossing films would surely _not_
be the ones which are recycled IP.

~~~
30thElement
Not necessarily. Only if you assume the people that go to movies are a good
representation of people in general, which I doubt is true. Considering how
important the teenage demographic is (why fewer movies are release with an R
rating nowadays, with some movies getting re-edited to go from an R to PG-13
rating), I'd bet teenagers are over-represented from a few years ago. And
you'd have to assume any time someone goes to the theaters they pick the best
movie for their tastes, not just the "safe bet" on a sequel or the one they've
seen the most advertising for.

Top 10 grossing was probably a bad pick, but I don't know a better way to
measure the general output of movie studios without considering every movie
released, even those shown in like 2 theaters worldwide.

~~~
rprasad
* I'd bet teenagers are over-represented from a few years ago.*

Teenagers are a smaller portion of the moviegoing market than they were 10
years ago. Smartphones, videogames, and various other distractions have cut
down on their numbers. [ _See_ Variety, L.A. Times, and any other
entertainment-focused news source.]

 _And you'd have to assume any time someone goes to the theaters they pick the
best movie for their tastes, not just the "safe bet" on a sequel or the one
they've seen the most advertising for._

That has always been true of movies. But as it turns out, many people's tastes
align with IP they are already familiar with: they know the characters, the
plots, etc., and so it is easier for them to judge whether the movie in
question will satisfy their interests.

------
eli
Big box office numbers don't really prove or disprove much.

