Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Movies Your Rights Online

The Avengers: Why Pirates Failed To Prevent a Box Office Record 663

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-wouldn't-download-an-angry-green-dude dept.
TheGift73 sends this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "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. ... Of all the people who downloaded a pirate copy of the film about 20% came from the U.S. 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. Not much of an impact, and even less when you consider that these 'pirates' do not all count as a lost sale."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Avengers: Why Pirates Failed To Prevent a Box Office Record

Comments Filter:
  • by kiwimate (458274) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @01:06PM (#39930905) Journal

    Well, according to the article, and the summary too, actually, about 0.5%, maximum. But the article goes on to say this is in the U.S.

    But does this mean that piracy is not an issue for the movie industry at all? Well not so fast.

    A recent study showed that the US box office is not suffering from movie piracy, but that there is a detrimental effect on international box office figures. The researchers attribute this impact to the wide release gaps, which sometimes result in a high quality DVD copy being available on pirate sites while a movie is still showing in theaters.

  • by Moheeheeko (1682914) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @01:11PM (#39931013)
    The midnight show here was sold out, and they had it running on EVERY screen in the place for the midnight show, and then went to sell out for the rest of the weekend.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @01:36PM (#39931419)

    Scarlett Johansson in her cat suit -full screen. [google.com]

    I rest my case.

    Give'm a reason to go to the theater assholes! Then they won't pirate the movies - you fucking dicks!

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @02:15PM (#39932103) Homepage Journal

    They're not arguing that there's no loss associated with piracy.

    They're showing real-world numbers that point out that the losses aren't the billions of dollars that the RIAA and MPAA keep associating with piracy.

  • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @03:45PM (#39933723)

    It doesn't matter what you call it. Copyright infringement is just the legalese. It's theft.

    No, it isn't, which is why there is a distinction in terms.

  • by eldorel (828471) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @04:08PM (#39934069)

    Stealing access that you don't have

    You are misusing the word stealing.

    Taking or forcing access to something without permission is trespassing, not theft. ( hence the computer trespass laws )

    Stealing is the removal of property without permission.

    Making a copy of something is not stealing it, as no property is removed.

    Pirating may be wrong or illegal, but it's not stealing.

    And no, pirates are not "stealing the profit from the lost sales".

    Just because the pirate felt that a movie was worth clicking a mouse button, doesn't mean that it would have been worth $20 if the mouse clicking was not an option.

  • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @06:07PM (#39935547)

    The thing about Piracy is, the people who pirate are not people who would have paid for it in the first place.

    That isn't totally correct.

    I've spent about 5 years not listening to any music, but a while ago I decided to check out what the bands I knew and liked have been up to in all these years. Some ended, which made me die a bit inside, others kept going without releasing any new album but others actually put out a couple of them.

    So, I've decided to check these new albums.

    One of these bands was The Atomic Bitchwax [theatomicbitchwax.com]. The band recorded a couple albums since I stopped listening to music, and so I set forth to download them. I did that, and on the .rar file which packed the latest album was a small text file which mentioned that the band's entire discography was being sold via download through the band's site. I've checked them out and lo and behold, they were selling a pack with their first 6 albums for 5 dollars. They were also selling the latest album for 5 dollars as well.

    So, I've spent 10 dollars and purchased both of them. Quite nice.

    At least in my case, I've only shelved 10 dollars on music, my only music purchase in the last 5 years, because I've downloaded some mp3 albums and stumbled on a good deal. I may not represent a lot of people, but as I happen to exist then it certainly must mean something. At least now, when I see someone claiming that people who download mp3 don't purchase music, or that music downloads hurt business, I know enough to call it like it is: a load of bullshit.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday May 08, 2012 @08:18PM (#39936757) Journal
    De-facto; because the supreme court says so [cornell.edu]. I share your skepticism; but IANAL...

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...