
The Avengers: Why Pirates Failed To Prevent A Box Office Record - narad
http://torrentfreak.com/the-avengers-why-pirates-failed-to-prevent-a-box-office-record-120508/
======
bobsy
A thing to note is that it was a CAM recording of the film that was leaked.

I have only ever watched one cam recording of a movie before. I think it was
'The Illusionist.' I was at a friends house, he slapped it on. The color
saturation was wrong, the sound was like mono and the camera appeared slightly
off so the very top or bottom of the screen was cut off. It wasn't completely
unwatchable but it spoiled the movie. Its like watching a film through a
neighbours window.. crap.

Piracy has far more effect on DVD sales. This is for 4 reasons. The price of
DVD's, the inconvenience of going out and getting the DVD, the bullshit
adverts and unskipable junk before the film and the menu which takes 20
seconds to display before you can press PLAY.

If there was a DVD quality recording of the avengers I think it would have
easily had 5x more downloads, probably 10x. However, realistically the cinema
is an experience. If you enjoy the cinema you are going to watch a film like
this at the cinema - then maybe download it. I am firmly of the opinion that
if you make a blockbuster film, whether it leaks or not it will do well.

~~~
nextparadigms
Imagine how much money they could make if they released a 1080p HD version
online, globally, 4 weeks at most after the launch in cinemas, and for a price
of $5.

That may or may not kill the cinemas in the long term, depending on how hard
they fight to become more competitive and unique compared to watching the
movie at home, but it would definitely not hurt the studios and movie makers.
If anything, they stand to make a lot more money on average for every released
movie.

~~~
sliverstorm
720p or 480p would be more realistic; the bandwidth costs for serving 1080p
would chew through that $5 pretty quickly. (Assuming reasonable video
bitrates) Besides, a very large chunk of consumers own machines that cannot
handle 1080p.

Before you scream bloody murder, remember DVDs are only 480p.

~~~
nitrogen
Let's assume that a 1080p movie encoded for streaming using H.264 ends up at
8GB (a generous overestimate for most movies). At entry-level datacenter
pricing of $0.10/GB, bandwidth costs will leave $4.20 for the rest of the
supply chain.

~~~
zzuser
$0.10/GB is way more than market rates for bandwidth. Dedicated server hosters
such as 100TB.com charge about $200 for 100TB, ie. $2/TB or 0.2 cents /GB,
resulting in a grand total of 1.6 cents for a 8GB movie stream.

------
tseabrooks
Torrentfreak's articles seem to get better and better. They note the ways in
which piracy is hurting films (foreign sales) and show some numbers indicating
that in the US it doesn't appear to be hurting sales much at all. While
obviously torrentfreak can't ever be considered objective in regards to
piracy, they seem to be getting closer each time.

Back on topic then, Does anyone have the background necessary to know if
someone (anyone) is working towards disrupting the complicated publishing mess
that keeps films from being available overseas for so long.

~~~
jcampbell1
I am perplexed by your comment about overseas release dates. There has been an
absolutely massive compression in release dates in the past 5 years. Most
obvious blockbusters are now globally released, and the spread for smaller
films has also been contracting.

Avengers was released overseas _prior_ to the US release. A film like The
Descendants was released 4 weeks early in NY/LA, and then foreign releases
were only 6 weeks after the US release. That is insanely fast for a movie that
could potentially have never made it out of NY/LA.

~~~
jswanson
Japan still lags behind the US for most big-ticket films. Avengers won't open
here until 2012/08/17, more than three months after the US release date. [1]
That's a month ahead of the projected blu-ray release of the film though.

It's really hit and miss, but most of the more major films lag by two to three
months.

1 -
[http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%99%E3%83%B3%E3%...](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%99%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BA_\(2012%E5%B9%B4%E3%81%AE%E6%98%A0%E7%94%BB\))

~~~
DeepDuh
Japan probably has one of the lowest piracy rates, so they don't seem to be
forced to release earlier there. Japan's own media is even more backwards,
most of their media never gets international releases although there is a big
fansub scene. They don't seem to need the money.

~~~
ekianjo
> They don't seem to need the money.

Oh no, they DO need the money, believe me. Most of their productions take
years to just break even, and some never do. The reason why they are not
actively pursuing international releases is linked to the way Japanese do
business. Most of these media companies are very traditional and do not
understand the opportunities outside of Japan. And even if they did, they'd
need to get the approval of an old 社長 to proceed with such plans. This happens
very rarely. They are missing a huge market.

~~~
DeepDuh
I know. That sentence was of course sarcastic ;). It's a shame too, because a
lot of their media has that special charm and its artistic value is sometimes
quite high IMO (especially in the anime department).

------
piquadrat
_Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance
is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists
on stage_

The direct impact of cam releases might very well be negligible. The bigger
problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie
fails the expectations of its potential audience. That probability is much
higher if there are CAMs available before the theatrical release.

So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck.

~~~
walexander
> So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck.

Yes, but it doesn't work exactly like that. s/not suck/profitable.

This just means that instead of taking chances on a film which is a big risk
(think Inception), we will simply see more and more super hero movies and more
and more sequels. There is much less of a margin of error when people are
downloading things.

I think there's little or no room for a "Requiem for a Dream" type of film in
the coming years. Maybe kickstarter will have to be the avenue to make movies
like that.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Inception wasn't that big a risk. Nolan had proved he could do ideas
(Memento), he'd proved he could do big budget (two Batman films) and he was
willing to stick major stars in it (including arguably the biggest star on the
planet). They then backed that up with a $100m advertising budget.

In many ways it was an art house sci-fi film but in many others it did
everything by the book for a big budget movie (proven track record, stars,
special effects and action then hype it to the hilt).

You're right that the pattern is towards the more conservative but I'm not
sure that Inception was a massively out there move.

Requiem for a Dream is a completely different beast and shows the other way
you can do it even now. That was a cheap film - £5m or so. Adjust for
inflation and you get maybe double that, which is still less than 5% of the
budget of the Avengers.

That sort of film can be funded by smaller production companies, by larger
studios (often as vanity / credibility projects - Schindler's List was seen
that way when it was signed off though I doubt the studio will admit that now)
and in a host of other ways. I can certainly see large studios funding things
like that almost as part of an incubator model - giving new directors who seem
promising a stage to show what they can do before they let them loose on
something larger.

------
iamben
For me it usually comes down to the 'is it worth it?' Avengers was worth it -
you knew it was going to be great in 3D, explosions, cinema sound, Iron Man,
etc. Whilst I begrudged paying £16 (~$26 US) for me and the girlfriend (before
even thinking about drinks / popcorn) we were always going to see it in the
cinema.

Compare that to a film that doesn't excite me (or most of the general
population), and all of a sudden I'd rather wait for the movie on Netflix or
whatever, because then £16 is better spent on a takeaway and watching from
home.

I know films are different strokes for different folks, but the cinema is
_really_ overpriced if you're in the 'shall we / shan't we' category, so I can
understand people just thinking - I'll pirate it and save the money (or spend
it on dinner) and watch from the comfort of my home - the risk to reward is so
much lower.

I'm not saying that's right - just with the cost as it is you need a great (or
mass appeal) product to get bums on seats. Or you have lower the cost in
cinemas and make going to the cinema the experience ("we can choose a film
when we get there") rather than people just going to see something in
particular.

EDIT: Regardless, great article on TF ;-)

~~~
vibrunazo
> you knew it was going to be great in 3D

Quick off-topic question. Is the 3d version worth it here? Usually most 3d
films is 3d just because, but make no real good use of it. But being 3d just
adds an extra unnecessary eye strain.

This is why I watched the Avengers on 2d. But is this one of those rare movies
(like avatar) where the 3d version is actually better? If so, I might go back
and watch it again.

~~~
m0nastic
I saw it in 3D yesterday (begrudgingly, as I hate 3D, but the theater I went
to only showed it in 3D). The 3D is used to pretty good effect for the most
part (ie: it's not 20 minutes of normal footage and then a gratuitous 3D shot
of something being waved at you), and I found that about an hour into the
movie, I didn't notice it.

What I thought was odd was that there were things in 3D that were just part of
the background (like there was literally a scene or two where the railing on a
walkway was jutting out in 3D).

If you've already seen it in 2D, I really don't think you missed out; but if
you liked the movie (and I thought it was very very good) and were going to
see it again anyway, the 3D doesn't ruin the experience.

------
rmc
_that there is a detrimental effect on international box office figures. The
researchers attribute this impact to the wide release gaps_

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

~~~
ljf
It's a hangover from the 'old days' where those lower down the release date
list got 'hand me down' film reels.

Reels are one of the last major costs for film distributors, and even in the
face of piracy they would rather cut costs there, than put there risk onto
their own shoulders and produce more reels. They are scared of being stuck
with a flop movie, and many theatres in the UK and elsewhere outside of the
USofA won't commit to buying reels without seeing USA box-office turnout
first. The delay is here, and until we have digital projecting, I'm not sure
how it will be solved

~~~
slavak
What year is this? I was sure the world had long since moved on to entirely
digital projection. I for one can't remember the last time I saw the "end-of-
reel" spots on a movie in the cinema.

Are reel projectors actually widely used still?

~~~
excuse-me
Yes reel projectors are still used - even at some multiplexes. The reason
there are no end of reel dots is that the changeover is now electronic and is
coded into the sound track but most places now have full film reels and single
projectors anyway to reduce the staffing requirements so there is no
changeover.

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

------
BerislavLopac
I'm pretty sure I know exactly when the film companies will abandon the
current business model for movies (theatres plus DVDs) and switch primarily to
online pay-per-view-like scheme, with DVDs going out pretty much immediately
and theatres surviving, but slowly fading.

It will happen as soon as the first studio realizes and takes advantage of the
fact that with such a scheme you a) can charge for the same movie over and
over again, and b) you can greatly improve the feedback on how popular which
movies are, which could use an update/sequel and which should be left to die.
This is something we in the Web business take for granted, but in the movies
they are still too ingrained in the old ways that they don't see the benefits
and effects of online distribution. But they will, mind you; not all at once,
but as soon as it proves itself they'll jump on the bandwagon.

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

The Avengers got people to go in mass groups and those people told other
friends to watch it.

~~~
excuse-me
That's the industry's real concern - that the majority of nice people will
pirate movies.

As long as it's a few kids downloading copies of the latest blockbuster they
aren't too worried - these people are guaranteed to go to see every
blockbuster anyway - and will go with large numbers of their friends - and go
multiple times. That's why the piracy of this kind of movie doesn't hurt US
ticket sales.

But when nice respectable couples decide to download the movie rather than
making the trip out, paying babysitters, etc then the industry has to worry.
All it's nice middle of the road mid budget movies that it can't pay for with
fast food tie-ins or theme park rides and had to rely on DVD sales for.

------
ilaksh
I'll be honest, I downloaded the CAM version and it was crap to me, and
someone had mentioned it was a great movie, so I went to the theater to see it
because I didn't want to miss out.

I think the guy who released that CAM might have been doing the movie studio a
favor because it might have made the next guy feel like he didn't need to do
his own upload which might have been better.

If there was a good version available when I went to pirate it, I wouldn't
have dragged myself to the theater.

I wanted to buy a large popcorn and soda with my cash when I got in there, but
I only had $12 so I had to put it on the card.

I just wish they would release stuff on Amazon or iTunes (although I hate that
program) the same day as it comes out.

Anyway, I spend way too much money on Amazon videos.

------
tptacek
Fatuous.

A cam'd version of The Avengers is not a market substitute for seeing the
movie in a theater. Of the movies you could possibly consider this way, The
Avengers is among the _least_ amenable to substitution via cam'd copies.

All the widely-available torrents of The Avengers are cam'd or equivalent.
There aren't screeners circulating.

A DVD rip _is_ a near-perfect substitute for a DVD (or a streamed version of
the movie, or whatever).

Nearly 50% of the revenue from motion pictures happens after the theater
release, most of it DVDs.

Think what you want to think about torrenting movies, but it should bother you
when sites like Torrentfreak insult your intelligence.

~~~
AndyKelley
I don't think you read the entire article, which explained everything you said
here quite clearly.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Entire article? He didn't even read the bold teaser, evidently. That was,
indeed, the entire point of the article.

There are a few sites that tptacek will insta-contrarian on HN. Torrentfreak
is one of them. You know the xkcd comic about someone is wrong on the
internet? Substitute "being wrong" for "generating rageviews with libertarian
nerds" and that is tptacek.

 _"Despite the widespread availability of pirated releases, The Avengers just
scored a record-breaking $200 million opening weekend at the box office. While
some are baffled to see that piracy failed to crush the movie’s profits, it’s
really not that surprising. Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously
impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs
stop people from seeing artists on stage."_

~~~
tptacek
I read the entire article; my point is that it doesn't say anything. Did
anyone think Avengers cams were what Hollywood is truly concerned about with
BitTorrent?

~~~
Natsu
> Did anyone think Avengers cams were what Hollywood is truly concerned about
> with BitTorrent?

They use night vision goggles & special cameras to locate people recording
movies, and charge people with serious federal crimes for the act (the kind
where you can get 3 years in prison) via a law enacted in 2005 [1]. Those
huge, ugly brown spots you see flash on the screen? They exist to track cam
pirates. They can also use audio distortions to pinpoint the exact seat the
person is in to help them further narrow down the suspects.

Hollywood has a very odd way of showing a lack of true concern about cams.

[1] FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AND COPYRIGHT ACT OF 2005 -
<http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl109-9.html>

~~~
AndyKelley
I'm really curious about the technology behind the brown spots and the audio
distortions. Can you cite your source for this stuff so I can read up on it?

~~~
Natsu
TorrentFreak has articles on the tech itself, but they don't go into a lot of
detail. I suspect the exact workings are secret.

EDIT: Link = [https://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-
dying-...](https://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-dying-art-of-
camcorder-piracy-120426/)

------
jakeonthemove
The most mind boggling thing I've seen big studios do is block some trailers,
promo videos or music videos in countries other than the US/UK/Canada or
whatever their main market is. Why in the world would you ever do that?

It makes absolutely no sense - they're blocking people in other countries from
getting to know their new movie/single, which means those potential cinema
goers and DVD/CD buyers either forget about it or go to torrent sites to get
it, so when the movie/single is finally released, few people care about it.

One of the stupidest thing I've ever seen, for sure...

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Why in the world would you ever do that?"_

Because the distribution rights probably belong to someone else in said
countries. It's the same reason why some songs are available on iTunes in the
US but curiously missing elsewhere.

~~~
jakeonthemove
So why don't they push the distributors to release the stuff at the same time?
It's their content, it's not the distributor who complains about piracy and
lost sales, the studios can just kick them out if they're not making any
sales... Besides, there are many countries where they have literally no
presence whatsoever and it's like they're actively trying to prevent it from
building up (unlike Microsoft, which just let people pirate their stuff, then
came in and said "actually, you need to pay for that" - in reference to
Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where they successfully converted many
companies and government agencies from pirates to paying customers)...

------
ChuckMcM
Nice post, he fails to mention that the camcorder version may have _increased_
ticket sales. I know people who have watched a torrent of a movie to see if it
was worth the $10 - $20 it costs to see it in the theater.

So of the 100,000 people who downloaded it, it would be interesting to poll
how many went to see it after seeing that it was a decent movie.

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

------
mayanksinghal
> anti-camcording technologies [[http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-
> attack-the-dying-a...](http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-
> dying-art-of-camcorder-piracy-120426/)]

This is largely off-topic but I was wondering if there are any other popular
anti-camcording technologies?

Also could a large IR lamp facing the viewers (or aimed at screen) be used to
disrupt the usage of camcorders? This will be additionally beneficial as a
large part of the world requires heating solutions during significant part of
the year.

~~~
fryguy
At the avengers screening I saw at midnight, it was like an oven in the
theatre. That's not the best idea with a room full of comic book nerds. In
theory, as long as the lamp is as bright as the movie it would make the movies
really dim for anybody recording it.

~~~
mayanksinghal
Didn't know that idea is already used, I was just throwing a possibility!

------
dutchbrit
"This means that roughly 100,000 Americans have downloaded a copy online
through BitTorrent. Now, IF all these people bought a movie ticket instead
then box office revenue would be just 0.5% higher."

Even though I agree with most points in this article, the 0.5% is a bit off.
When a "pirate" (yarghh) decides to download a movie, they usually end up
watching it with friends and/or family - not just by themselves..

Still, if you really care about a movie, you would watch it in a cinema
instead of watching a bad "CAM" version.

~~~
psquid
The point is that the stated 0.5% is an upper bound, so even if _none_ of them
also bought a ticket, as you speculated (and I find it very unlikely that this
is the case), they would still only make up a 0.5% difference in the box
office revenue.

------
espadagroup
I believe pirating does affect ticket sales but really only for the lower
budget/less anticipated movies. I tend to bucket all the movies I want to
watch into 3 categories: go the movies, dollar theater, and download. The less
I truly want to see the movie the lower down the bucket list it goes.

So yeah a movie like the Avengers which for me and probably most others will
definitely be in the top bucket won't be affected much by pirating. Can't say
the same for say Madagascar 3.

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

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

