
Piracy Doesn’t Hurt Game of Thrones, Director Says - fraqed
http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-doesnt-hurt-game-of-thrones-director-says-130227/
======
cynicalkane
It's price discrimination by ethics and wealth. If the product of your
willingness to pay and unwillingness to pirate exceeds some amount of money,
you buy HBO to watch Game of Thrones.

There'll be a certain proportion of piracy:payers where this is no longer
true. If everyone took TorrentFreak's position on piracy, Game of Thrones
would make no money no matter how popular it was. If nobody pirated, Game of
Thrones would be less popular. So it sits nicely at the current position.

But this does _not_ help if you don't have the 'cultural buzz' working in your
favor, or if there are too many pirates. It's a mistake to think people
adapting to the economic field means the economic field is good. DRM platforms
like Steam are adaptations that do not please the sort of people who read
TorrentFreak, but are necessary because of the extraordinary piracy rate of
video games (famously, over 90% for World of Goo).

~~~
belorn
> DRM platforms like Steam are adaptations that do not please the sort of
> people who read TorrentFreak, but are necessary because of the extraordinary
> piracy rate of video games (famously, over 90% for World of Goo).

There does not exist a single peer-reviewed study that shows a correlation
between increased sales and DRM systems.

World of Goo was one of the first indy games to reach large reception of
users. Sadly, it takes time before people are willing to spend money on new
concepts. Same effect can be seen in cult movies. Most cult movies do not earn
a bunch of money. They barely even get copied at first. Blade Runner did not
have an issue with piracy, and they still got crap in revenues. I would not be
surprised if 90% of the people who have seen Blade Runner did not do so at a
cinema. I would guess most people has seen it on a copied tape, copied by
someone who thought "Ooo, what is this? this is nice. Let me share that with a
friend".

Had World of Goo been released today, they would had much better sale numbers
together with current piracy numbers. World of Goo of the past has shown that
indy games a worth the risk of buying a copy and testing it out (if one would
ignore the paradox).

It should also be mentioned that creator of Psychonauts got more (or close to
it) money from kickstarter, than from initial sales. Ie, people were more
willing to _bet_ money on something for little or no return, than they were
willing to bet money on the original game itself before it was known to be
good. Do anyone actually think that DRM would have made the original
Psychonauts a massive revenue source?

~~~
cynicalkane
> There does not exist a single peer-reviewed study that shows a correlation
> between increased sales and DRM systems.

I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed study saying the other way, either. This is
such a weird thing to say. Do you only believe information that comes from
peer-reviewed studies?

Many indie developers who might be sympathetic to the anti-DRM cause still
choose DRM platforms, because they perceive it makes money for them. Or maybe
they choose to make webapp type software, which conveniently avoids the issue
while being the most unfree method of all.

Since they are closest to the market, they posses what economists call 'local
knowledge'. Some have released numbers to back up their claims, which is more
than you've done. (Also, how many people do you think had a VHS copier when
Blade Runner came out? 0% of people I knew growing up could copy VHS tapes.)
Anyway, I think it is correct to look at market behavior if you want to talk
about market behavior, not what bloggers say when they aim to maximize
pageviews.

~~~
belorn
We do live in a society based on evidence gathering, and thus market behavior
should be based on it. My attempt to address the issue is mostly to point that
out, and then do some observation regarding the market. Observation is the
first step before evidence is gathered, while theory/best practice is the last
step after Observation, evidence and analysis has proven something to be
"true".

When people give out best practices, or gives out necessities of the market
based on nothing but opinion and theory, it become pure myth and superstition.
Sysadmin work which is my line of work, has a bunch of myths. Some people
still making firewall rules against win95 ping of deaths, even if everyone in
the company is running around with this years gadgets.

But you did ask if I have any evidence of my own, and here I relied on common
sense and observations. DRM cost money, in both time, effort and support.
Additional, I looked at the indy crowd of movie makes which has only has
weak/no DRM, and the indy crowd of games which has all from strong to no DRM.
What I can see, there are no major difference what so ever, and both groups
often suffer from low revenues in products that later get critical acclaimed
as a master piece.

But Im sorry, no, I do not have any research paper to support that
observation. That would be the second step, through one can glimpse some truth
by checking if anyone are disagreeing with it. Also, since DRM cost money, it
should naturally require a higher burden of evidence to become best practice
or necessity in the industry.

 _Minor note about Blade runner_ : It took several years before the movie
reached a cult status. By the time it did, people started to have dual VHS
players at home or could call some dude in the campus to do a copy.

~~~
Kylekramer
I am just confused why you require a peer review study to prove DRM is good
while your evidence it is bad is "common sense" and "well I think Blade Runner
didn't make money till people passed around VHS tapes".

~~~
belorn
I do not think we need to provide evidence that a developers time cost money
(ie, to code/acquire DRM software). Second, I don't think we need to provide
evidence that running a server and having bandwidth to run authentication
servers cost money. Last, I doubt we need to provide evidence that extra
support calls thanks to DRM issues cost money.

Each three of those are what I call common sense, ie, we know them all to be
true. Those are also the only assumptions I included in my "I relied on common
sense and observations". The rest is observations, which is the first step in
a honest and scientific discussion about the effect of DRM. First you do
observations, second you collect evidence, third you do analysis and last you
create theory. Only once you done each step and reached theory should economic
decision be made in the case of including DRM to increase revenue. Before
that, only the cost of DRM is know and everything else is speculations. Those
speculations has both those that say its great and those that say its crap and
there is nothing in the world that will convince them beyond a scientific
approach.

------
Symmetry
"Online piracy is like fouling in basketball. You want to penalize it to
prevent it from getting out of control, but any effort to actually eliminate
it would be a cure much worse than the disease."
[http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/01/sopa_stopping_online_piracy_would_be_a_social_and_economic_disaster_.html)

------
timedoctor
The problem is that privacy is better in EVERY way: 1\. Faster to download the
content 2\. Much wider availability of content 3\. Cheaper (free) 4\. Easier
to search and find the content that you want (for people who know how to
pirate effectively, for those that don't it's actually quite hard to search
and find the content and that's one of the main reasons why piracy hasn't
dominated more than it already has) 5\. Better formatting of the content
(easier to manipulate, download it and consume it how you want it)

Personally I would always pay for content if it's available and easy to
download. Unfortunately it's not. There are significant restrictions in what
you can purchase online and download.

~~~
progrock
I like a little privacy too!

I get what you mean about convenience, I have a boxed DVD version of Game of
Thrones, and I ended up using a download instead, mainly because I can't
handle the hum of my DVD drive! Laughable though that is. If however it was
very simple to rip the DVDS I might have gone that route.

I have loads of DVDS that feel almost obsolete. The quality of some of them is
just shocking. DVD menus, that forever loop and keep you up at night. The low
resolution and sound is crappy compared with HD. And the box get's in my way.
I feel a little cheated here.

I wouldn't want to go out and buy those DVDS in my collection again in a
format that will be obsolete in a year or two. If I have bought the right to
view them - shouldn't I be able to download improved versions?

I have a meager download allowance, and my connection speed is too slow for
streaming, so sadly I loose out to some of the subscription services that
would otherwise please me.

------
teilo
I know nothing of HBO's revenue numbers. But I would predict this much: If HBO
Go were available as a standalone subscription, the number of copies of Game
of Thrones that are pirated would drop substantially, and HBO's overall
revenue would go _up_ , not down. If they offered a Game of Thrones only
option at a discount, their revenue would go _way_ up. Yes, armchair
quarterbacking, so take it for what it's worth.

I pay for my TV, but I'm a cable cutter. I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus. I
pay for particular series on iTunes that I cannot get anywhere else. I will
not under any circumstances go back to cable or dish. Therefore I will not
ever be paying for HBO. But I would purchase an HBO Go subscription in a
heartbeat if I had the option. I have to think I represent a fairly
significant number of people in the same position.

~~~
pkteison
I believe them when they say that net revenue would go -down- (
<https://twitter.com/HBO/status/210390531623227392> ).

Right now they have a gigantic sales force by using the sales staff of all the
cable and satellite companies, plus they get to punt on all billing and
customer support to the same partner companies. If they were to start selling
straight to the customer, hbo would need to staff up their own
billing/support, but more importantly, they bite the hand that feeds them.
Cable companies wouldn't be pushing nearly as hard to sign people up for HBO
if it wasn't going to lock customers in to cable. You'd need a -lot- of sign
ups to make up for cable companies switching to promoting the heck out of a
different premium channel.

I think the smart move is to milk the gravy train of cable partnerships for a
few more years until cable subscriptions fall off more. Then switch to dealing
with customers directly. But that's a huge transition to staff up a company
and start dealing with end users, and it isn't the risk-free cost-free no
brainer that we assume it is when we say HBO should just take our money.

~~~
edwardunknown
I think House of Cards probably changed the situation somewhat: if Netflix can
keep putting out exclusive content of that caliber HBO is going to lose a lot
of customers. The week after that show premiered HBO enabled AirPlay on their
iPhone app, which by the way is fantastic. I bet they're already prepared to
go the Netflix route and are just watching the numbers for the right time to
strike.

~~~
kin
I'm so glad Netflix went out to prove this can be done. Truth is many cable
providers have exclusive content like DirecTV and Friday Night Lights. It
never really worked because the cost to subscribe to cable for one show was so
high. Netflix is much more economical and to have a Davind Fincher directed
pilot starring Kevin Spacey is proof. Not to mention how accessible the show
is.

------
BerislavLopac
The obligatory case in point: <http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones>

------
rplnt
On reddit someone mentioned this is one of many directors of the show and
certainly isn't an HBO's spokeman or anything like that. It's just one man's
opinion.

~~~
MrScruff
Compared to the way torrentfreak and techdirt treat the issue of intellectual
property, John Gruber is an impartial observer.

------
tptacek
Petrarca directed just two episodes of GoT. The showrunner for GoT is David
Benioff.

~~~
nollidge
Benioff and also D.B. Weiss.

------
nollidge
David Petrarca is not "the show's director", he's _a_ director of _two_
episodes:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_of_Thrones_episode...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_of_Thrones_episodes)

------
speeder
I pirate tv shows. As couple of them.

Many people come to bother me on that. But I must say:

The alternative is just not seeing them at all it is depriving myself of
culture. And not by choice, it just happen that where I live those shows are
not available at all even with hackery, and I doubt they will ever be, since I
like sci-fi stuff, and here what sells is oversexual soapoperas.

Do like Steam! I had about 600 pirated games here, after they launched I
bought the most liked ones on Steam ( and later gog.com that I prefer) and
stopped pirating games.

You want less piracy? Make a effort to take your fans money, and they will
happily hand it to you.

~~~
eddieroger
You have another option, and it's one that a majority of viewers do - pay for
the service you want to use. Piracy is the option you've chosen. HBO has
chosen how they want to take your money, and you don't want to give it to them
on their terms. Unfortunately for you, it's their product to sell on their
terms.

And, following the Steam example, if you have cable, HBO regularly has free
weekends where they will show blocks of their programming. This is the try-
before-you-buy. Again, it's yours not to buy, but they have decided how they
want to make their product available.

~~~
davmre
Many people don't have the option to pay for HBO, either because they live in
a country where it's not available, or because they don't have cable TV and
it's not reasonable or affordable (for many people) to pay $60+/mo to Comcast
just to have the privilege of then paying another $15+/mo for HBO.

So yes, Game of Thrones is HBO's product to sell how they want. And if they
choose not to make it available in some countries, or to people without cable
TV, that's their choice. But they shouldn't be offended or surprised when the
people they refuse to sell to end up finding other ways to watch their
content.

To his credit, David Petrarca seems to recognize that -- given that someone
can't buy your content -- it's still better for everyone involved if they
pirate it, discuss it with friends, and contribute to its mindshare. The
alternative is that they ignore it completely, in which case HBO gets no money
_and_ no buzz.

~~~
res0nat0r
Is Ferrari "refusing to sell" to me since I can't afford to pay $150k for a
car?

~~~
davmre
No. But if Ferrari a) had no dealerships in your country, and provided no
legal way for you to import, and/or b) decided they would only sell their
$150k cars to owners of $1M houses, then (assuming you don't own a $1M house)
they'd be refusing to sell to you. And in that circumstance, if there existed
some way for you to acquire a free Ferrari in a way that didn't involve taking
value away from anyone else, but in fact helped advertise the Ferrari name,
then both you and Ferrari would benefit from your doing so.

Of course, this is an absolutely ridiculous metaphor because _physical
property and intellectual property are very different things_. When I steal
physical X, the owner doesn't have X anymore. When I pirate intellectual X,
the owner still has X. There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favor of IP
protection and against piracy -- and those arguments can be and have been made
on HN -- but given how well-established that basic distinction is, whenever
you equate piracy with stealing physical objects you're essentially giving up
any pretense of discussing these issues in good faith.

~~~
res0nat0r
That's a lot of convoluted reasoning to try and justify that you are not
paying for something when you know you should be. Since you can't legally pay
for it, you should go without.

------
codex
The director is not responsible for HBO's bottom line, so I'm not sure he's as
qualified to comment as others within HBO. For example, he doesn't know how
HBO subscription numbers are affected by piracy. In fact, from his
perspective, he may benefit more from piracy, depending on his compensation
structure, as it enhances his fame, and he may not be paid proportionally to
HBO's subscription revenue. So his interests may diverge from HBO's.

------
adcoelho
A good option for series to still profit from advertisements even if they are
pirated is to insert them in video instead of the regular break cuts that can
easily be edited out. Thus, even if the show is pirated the consumer would
still be exposed to advertising. The problem here is that we would have to
bear with those lame, sort of 'watermark', adds. There may be a way for shows
to cope with piracy in a profitable way.

~~~
nollidge
This is a show on a premium cable channel, so advertising is not at all part
of the equation.

------
fnordfnordfnord
What hurts them is not selling it outside the HBO/Cable sales channel.

~~~
jfb
Apparently not, if 4.3 million pirated copies isn't hurting their bottom line.

------
Nikkau
Phone call is coming.

------
tn13
No DRM based system can managed to extract money from me.

------
OGinparadise
"Piracy Doesn’t Hurt Game of Thrones, Director Says"

Now, what does HBO say? The director presumably didn't put any money to
produce it.

Personally I'd pay around $1 an episode but I understand HBO's business model
and what they stand to lose if they went this route too

