
Pictured: Typical Megaupload user
This one oughta get the torrent and illegal streaming crowd all fired up. The Munich School of Management and the Copenhagen Business School recently published a paper titled “Piracy and Movie Revenues: Evidence from Megaupload” that argues the shutdown of the streaming website Megaupload actually may have hurt some films’ box office revenues. I’ll give all of the diehard pirates out there a second to do some dancing and finger-wagging before I throw a little water on this.
Noting a slight but steady change in finances across the world before and after the Megaupload shutdown — taking into account inflation, Internet penetration and the site’s popularity as well — the researchers concluded that “the shutdown had a negative, yet in some cases insignificant effect, on [smaller films'] box office revenues.” Their case then goes on to explore file sharing’s role as “a mechanism to spread information about a good from consumers with zero or low willingness to pay to users with high willingness to pay.”
Okaaaaaay, buuuuuuuut…
However, before studios begin feverishly directing their promotional efforts toward torrent sites galore, the Munich team did find that with blockbusters obtaining a screen count over 500, the effect is actually opposite, having found instead a financial boost following the raids. So as much “Cabin in the Woods” and “The Avengers” differed both in Joss Whedon’s involvement and eventual box-office, the film’s results left to file-sharing sites predict a much more divergent result.
So, basically, for small films with teeny budgets that open in very limited markets — typically only on the coasts — piracy can end up as a means of promotion. This makes sense, I suppose. A studio isn’t going to sink millions of dollars for billboards and commercials into a film called Reflections On a Life of Solitude starring a foreign actor most of the country has never heard of, no matter how good it is, and they’ll probably only open it in art house theaters in New York and San Francisco. But if John Q. Pirate (pictured above), who lives in Kansas and can’t see the film unless he travels halfway across the country, pirates it online and tells his friends, and they tell their friends, and so on and so forth, the word of mouth may build to the point that the studio can extend the film’s run or open it in more theaters. Hence, more revenue via the old “a single harm with the potential to create a greater good” thing. (Admittedly this is a very simple example. I got a B- in Economics. Work with me.)
On the other hand, pirating a movie like The Dark Knight Rises or Breaking Dawn takes revenue away from the studios because they don’t need your word of mouth. THOSE MOVIES ARE EVERYWHERE. The studios already put hundreds of millions of dollars into putting the actors’ faces on Big Gulps and lunch boxes, and they’re playing them 30 times a day at a movie theater five minutes from your house. They just want your money at that point.
tl;dr PIRACY RULEZ SORTA SOMETIMES I GUESS?
Photo credit: Shutterstock/Minerva Studio



So now that lots of smaller movies get the On Demand/iTunes/Play store pre-release and simultaneous release we should see a positive trend upwards for those small movies right? Since if you’re pirating a smaller movie you have an interest in seeing it so should be willing to pay for it.
Yeah, if there’s a legitimate, above-board way to see the film, that whole “piracy helps” argument goes out the window, for the most part.
I don’t think it removes the “piracy helps” argument so much as changes it and pushes the argument back on to the consumer who justifies piracy due to the limited release argument and how they would pay to see it if they could.
Then again I’m an asshole. I believe in paying for music, movies and stuff but fuck you I hate web ads.
Jesus, I get enough google and federal agencies paying close attention to what I do. I didn’t know filmdrunk was going to jump on the “snitch out nominus’ whole deal and location” bandwagon. Hayrack ride. Whatever.
Nommy!!!
Informant!!! Where’s your donut, pig? Oh, wait….you’re me. I forgot that. I’m not insane.
If anybody is interested, I bootlegged the shit out of Dethklok the other day. Two cameras, a phone, dry humping with others on the rail…the works. Metal bands draw boobies pretty good.
Well now, I’ve just been informed that I am being followed. By a member of this community. Get ya house in order yalls. Jesus, it never frucking ends with me.
Alright alright, BUT – take for example a truly shitty movie, like Ted. I’d never watch it, never pay for it. But I did download it and watch it at home to see what the hype was about. It was still extremely shitty, but isn’t the amount of ads the product placements alone imprinted into my brain worth the ticket price? I’m thinking we who pirate blockbusters pay that price either way through ads, and the theater ticket price is nothing but a bonus for the studios, a tip.
I just want to quote here:
“take for example a truly shitty movie, like Ted. I’d never watch it”
5 words later
“But I did download it and watch it”
I am so confused. So, so confused.
He meant he’d never pay to watch it even though he wanted to see it.
That is correct, sorry. That was supposed to say “I’d never pay to see it.” but somehow it came out wrong.
By your logic, it’s okay to steal a car off a lot and joyride in it for a few hours because it’s ugly and you didn’t like it, anyway.
If you don’t want to see Ted, then *don’t fucking see Ted.* Stealing is stealing.
If you loved Ted, would you have gone out to see it in the theater? Bought a DVD? Not bloody likely.
Think about the company you work for and whatever product you produce. If someone walked up to the register at Subway and said to you ‘I would like this sandwich, but I don’t want to pay for it because I’m pretty sure Subway sandwiches are gross and I know I won’t like it, but I just want to be sure.’, would you not just punch them in the face?
[guess who works for a company that produces movies. stop stealing my bonus, jerks.]
That’s not the same in the least, your analogies make no sense. A car company doesn’t have product placements that finance it on the dashboard of a car. Stealing it would not benefit the company in any way – it’s sole source of income is the _sale_ of cars, while the movie companies have several sources – the ticket price being only one of. I also won’t go out and buy something else because I ate a Sub, there’s no product placement embedded in my brain other than the desire for more Sub sandwiches.
To answer your question – yes, I buy/rent movies I like. More often than not I watch a movie a second time in the theater if I really like it. I don’t mind paying for quality – all my software (except bad movies) is legal and bought. But I will protect myself and make damn sure I don’t pay for shit products.
I disagree that cars don’t have advertising on them. Your horn has the car logo on it. As does the hood and the trunk. Do you think those are there for you? The license plate frame your dealer puts on? XM? Your navi? The Lo-Jack stickers on your window? There is lots of product placement on and in a car and it does not reduce your cost.
At Subway, anything that is not Subway branded is product placement. Why does the cookie box have to have ‘Otis Spunkmeyer’ written all over it? Why not keep the chips behind the counter and out of sight? The soda fountains, why have Coke logos on them and not just ‘cola’? You’re being advertised to more than you think. I don’t know for sure but I suspect Coke, Doritos, et al have to pay something to get their product in that channel.
So at the end of my Subway diatribe, add ‘… and look at all this advertising you are throwing at me. Because I’ve seen all these corporate, non-Subway logos, the price of my sandwich, which I’m expecting to suck, should be lower or free.’
While I know it’s difficult for people to get out to the theater and watch movies these days, unless the option is being home for a four day weekend with their families, theaters will give you your money back if you don’t like the movie. If you walk out you should go to the box office with your stub and get a refund. If you sit through the whole thing then ymmv.
I’m not sure I’m buying ‘I expect to hate this thing’ as an excuse to consume something for free that you’re not entitled to consume.
Well if I steal an Opel car the car bombarding me with Opel logos will hardly make me go back and buy an Opel car, won’t it? I guess you could count the rest as product placement in a way, sure, but those only happen after I already purchased a product, don’t they? A car with an alarm built in and an alarm sticker will hardly make me go buy another alarm for the same car. Those product placements are void.
Good points about the Subway stuff though, true, they should cost less, but I pay for Subs because I enjoy them, even if my eyes are raped by product placements. I wouldn’t steal them because I enjoy them. There were promotions on numerous occasions in our local Subway joint that gave away free sandwiches, and those only got me hooked and made me buy more. In the case of Ted, I stole and ate a rotten fucking sandwich and you can be sure I’ll never willingly watch another movie by the same director / movie company again unless they lure me in with a free good one (trailer? good reviews? I’ll go re-watch it in the theater if it turns out good, like I usually do).
There are no refunds here, but it’s nice to know they exist somewhere. Were that the case here, I’m sure I’d be testing movies in theaters more than in my living room.
“I stole and ate a rotten fucking sandwich” FTW.
Mattyj2001, out!
I think a lot of movie people use piracy as an excuse for the failure of movies that were never going to succeed regardless. Like, Spike Lee said piracy hurt “She Hate Me.” BullSHIT. People wouldn’t watch that fucker if you gave it to them, much less waste bandwidth downloading it.
Also I don’t think movies that skew old–Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, like–have anything to worry about. Their target audience is more likely to be hooked up to an EKG than to an ISP.
The FBI is soooooo fucked. I mean like Lexington Steele in the ass w/out lube fucked. Their case against Megaupload is a joke and the New Zealand court is not laughing.
The 39 files they issued the warrant over were only hosted by Megaupload because Homeland Security had asked Dotcom to hold onto them because they were evidence in a pending case. A fact that was left out of the report that the issuing judge had read. Woops.
[www.nzherald.co.nz]
“John Q. Pirate (pictured above), who lives in Kansas”
HOW THE FUCK YOU GUYS FIND ME? AND WHERE DID GET MY PICTURE???
Of course, there’s no way to ever know this, but I always wondered how many people pirate movies that they were never going to pay in the first place – meaning, of all the people who downloaded The Avengers, how many of them never had any intent of plopping down $10 to see it on the big screen in the first place?
I don’t really know anybody who downloads some movies but then pays for others because they couldn’t find a free bootleg – it seems like people who pirate movies just do that all the time, and never go to the theater anyway. People who haven’t been able to find a copy of Skyfall to download yet aren’t going to give in and begrudgingly go to the theater – they’re just going to wait it out a few more weeks until they can find a copy to download.
Obviously, that’s completely unsubstantiated and based on nothing but my own thoughts/opinions, and it may be entirely untrue. But I wonder about it sometimes.
I’m guessing that this is true for a lot of people and for the most part, pirated versions of movies are available in the US before the theatrical release. So pirates really don’t have to make that choice.
The idea for studios isn’t to slow down pirating, but stop it altogether so pirates absolutely will not have that choice, they’ll have to go to a theater. Some won’t, but most probably consider themselves movie enthusiasts and will go to the theater and pay like everyone else if no other choices are available. It’s just too easy to pirate and that’s probably not going to change.
Stealing is stealing regardless of what a pirate would do otherwise. Nobody applies pirate logic to any other consumer products or services. It’s hard to make a parallel to consumer products because they’re more tangible, but you wouldn’t steal a car and say it’s okay because you wouldn’t otherwise have driven it.
Or think about college or some other intangible thing that costs money. Maybe yoga class. You can’t sanely argue that you should go to college for free because others have paid, the classes are full, the professors are already there, you’re not taking up any extra space, so what’s the harm on sitting in on classes and getting a free education? The effort by the professors are the same and they’re essentially ‘copying’ the education to you for free. That’s wrong. Anything that has a price attached to it should not be consumed for free. If you don’t like it, then you don’t need that product.
[note, talking about the royal 'you'. used39 I don't think you're a pirate, it's just difficult to talk about this in the third person.]
Example: went to see Avengers, and pirated it the next day. later that week took others who didnt see it the 1st time with me, paid for it twice, pirated once. store purchased dvd when it came out also…
The thing that pisses me off is the way people justify it. Just admit that you’re a thief who doesn’t feel like paying for a product. Ah, I feel better.
This all makes sense. It’s why indie bands liked Napster and Metallica hated it.
DG have you read anything about the DOJ’s case against Dotcom and the company? It’s pretty interesting. I read the Wired cover story this weekend and it sketches the basics pretty well.
I only watch pirated downloads so I can THEN pay to go see it in a movie theatre and shout out spoilers to ruin the experience for everyone else.
Hey! Don’t judge me, you’re not God or Judge Judy or somebody like that.
This article gets the paper’s findings exactly backwards, which is weird because the excerpted quotes seem perfectly clear. From the paper: “Box office revenues of movies shown on the average number of screens and below were affected negatively, but the total effect is not statistically significant. For blockbusters (shown on more than 500 screens) the sign is positive (and significant, depending on the specification).” So small movies like CABIN IN THE WOODS will on average lose money, but this effect is statistically insignificant. Blockbusters that get pirated actually make more money. Probably because blockbusters have production values (effects and sound) that make you want to see it in better clarity than cam pirating allows.
Thank you.
Actually no, we both missed the part where it says that these are the findings AFTER the raids.
Carry on, Vince.