Study Says Piracy Has A Negligible Effect on Box Office

[Lighthouse]

I still oppose piracy ethically, but this just shows how completely and totally unnecessary these insane anti-piracy bills are. The bills are just about greed.

Piracy Has Negligible Influence On U.S. Box Office: Study (http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/piracy-has-negligible-influence-on-u-s-box-office-study/)

While researchers in the study acknowledge an increase in piracy — especially for genres such as science fiction and action films — U.S. audiences still prefer the theatrical experience. The study found that Americans are heading to theaters in about the same numbers they would have otherwise in the absence of piracy, suggesting that perhaps people opt to see a film in a theater despite an initial pass online, or word of mouth from a pirated copy of a film may push others to the multiplex.

The study also concludes that since the advent of piracy software BitTorrent in 2003, the longer the lag time between a film’s release abroad compared to its U.S. opening, the greater the depression in box office receipts. Generally, the study found international returns were 7% lower in the sample set than they would have been had piracy not existed. Hollywood films normally bow in the U.S. before heading abroad, with opening dates varying by country; countries like Denmark, Finland, Italy, Poland, and Turkey generally have longer lag times than the UK, Switzerland and Australia.

[dark_b]

rich studio exec's are saying that everyone who wouldnt be able to download a movie would buy a DVD. which is BS. people who download would only rent a movie. they watch the movie and then they delete it from the computer.

if somone rents a movie its not the same as buying a DVD.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I didn't need a study to tell me that studios are full of ****.

[Donut]

The Studios also opening big popular movies like The Avengers opening in some Countries before others. Also plays a part in there being copies of new movies online before certain other Countries. People will do stuff like CAM movies just to say. They did it first

[MessiahDecoy123]

Studios will ignore this.

They're blinded by greed.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I always hated them screaming about how they lost billions upon billions because of pirates.

I know how about those jack asses make better films?

[Lighthouse]

I think my title is a little misleading. I should have put "US Box Office" instead of just "Box Office". Piracy does effect international revenue, but the point still stands that action should come from their end, and not from the government.

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Isn't it already plainly obvious that piracy doesn't help sales?

[redhawk23]

^ No one ever said they did. What this study is arguing is that it doesn't necessarilly hurt them here in the States either.

[Ultimatehero]

Studios pirate all the time. It's part of what I love about the hypocrisy of anti-pirating rants. Studio presidents do it all the time, just the "common man" can't lol.

[gkokujin]

"piracy software BitTorrent"

yes bit torrent was created specifically to pirate movies and software.

[dark_b]

not true IMO. its a software created for sharing. the problem is that today a lot people like ot share music and movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29

[dude love]

He was being sarcastic.

[jmc]

Well this is a case of no **** sherlock.

[CGHulk]

edit.

[obin_gam]

We in europe get pissed off having to wait 9 ****ing months for great movies to get over here (current example: The Muppets). Thats why we pirate. Because we read about the movies and how great they are, and want to see them too! And we would gladly pay for them if they were made accessible to us at the same time americans get them.

And its the other way around too I would guess.

[craigdbfan]

This is like stating that water is liquid or that the sky is blue.

[gkokujin]

no matter HOW big or sophisticated your A/V system is, there is nothing that will replace the theater experience.

Box office numbers should show that. People (normal) don't wait for a movie to come out on DVD or someone to pirate it.

[Lencho01]

Does anyone know why they don't release films worldwide at closer dates (or on the same date altogether)?

[hopefuldreamer]

If they want me to go to the cinema more, they should put the prices down :dry:

The fact is, if there is a film I HAVE to see, I will see it in the cinema.

And if I lived closer to the cinema (it's an hour and a half bus journey away) I'd probably go and see a lot more. It's just a much deeper experience, no distractions, the best picture and sound quality etc.

If I can wait until a half decent copy has found its way to pirate land and watch that... I'd have been quite happy to wait for it to come to DVD as well. And then I might have rented it. Or found a friend to borrow it off of... Heck with some stuff I'd probably have caught it on TV a few years later at christmas or something :p

The pirate copy taken out of the equation wouldn't make me go to the cinema and see it. I'd just wait longer.

We in europe get pissed off having to wait 9 ****ing months for great movies to get over here (current example: The Muppets). Thats why we pirate. Because we read about the movies and how great they are, and want to see them too! And we would gladly pay for them if they were made accessible to us at the same time americans get them.

And its the other way around too I would guess.

I agree with this more for television shows than anything. Some of them never make it to our tv channels. And some of them never even make it to DVD box sets playable in our region.

But yeah it's annoying having to wait, especially in the land of internet discussion forums :)

[mr. peasant]

Does anyone know why they don't release films worldwide at closer dates (or on the same date altogether)?

Without actually being in the industry myself, I can only guess there could be a number of reasons such as waiting for censorship and rating board approvals, and that it's probably cheaper to screen a movie that's been out for awhile as opposed to one that's only freshly been released.


As for the study itself, there are a number of limitations. For instance, they make the assumption that an absence of lag time between a local release and international release means that the movie is not pirated. However, when this is not true. Day zero pirated copies do exist. As such, using this as the baseline of 'no piracy' would result in them underestimating the impact of piracy on box office sales.

Another assumption they make is that the reduced profit margins are directly attributed to piracy. Correlation does not imply causation. There are many other possible causes leading to poorer box office performances (e.g. bad reviews, less interest amongst international audiences, etc). For instance, highly anticipated movies with broad appeal and high levels of publicity (e.g.action summer blockbusters) tend to get released globally at the same time.

Lastly, the scope of the study is itself very limited. Low-quality pirated copies are of course not going to be able to significantly compete against cinemas. However, the situation is likely to be quite different when it comes to DVD and Blu-ray sales where pirated copies are of equal quality.

In short, this study was complete crap and near useless.

[:eek:]

We in europe get pissed off having to wait 9 ****ing months for great movies to get over here (current example: The Muppets). Thats why we pirate. Because we read about the movies and how great they are, and want to see them too! And we would gladly pay for them if they were made accessible to us at the same time americans get them.

And its the other way around too I would guess.

Releasing big movies many months later in Europe than in America seems to be something only Disney is still doing. Otherwise it happens more and more that especially big summer movies are opening earlier in Europe. In Sweden we get Battleship on April 13 and The Avengers on April 27

[dark_b]

from what i understand Pixar movies are realesed in the UK 4months later. this is an insult.

[Mace Dolex]

Why is piracy still an issue? practiaclly all the bootleg movies I've seen are terrible, bad lighting/people talking/bad sound. And of course once the person buys the regular DVD they just toss the bootleg out.

I remember living in Ecuador in the 80's when it would be months or a year for movies to get released, if they were big hits then the wait was 5 months.

When it came to TV shows it was longer since they needed a chunk or episodes ready for dubbing.

[Mace Bloodstone]

It's just an excuse to raise prices.

[matrix_ghost]

Does anyone know why they don't release films worldwide at closer dates (or on the same date altogether)?

One of the factors is definately that the movies released in certain markets also have to open as well which can compete with other releases.
FOr example if Hollywood would basically show all their movies as the same time in the foreign markets , when will for example spanish movies or french movies or dutch movies have the time of the screens to be released.

ANother factor is also important sports events. For example it would be the dumbest idea ever to release a blockbuster during the time when the World Cup FOotball opens.

[dark_b]

i agree.

[Rocketman]

Maybe when Hollywood stops stealing material, audiences will too.

Seriously, every romantic comedy, every children's CG animated movie, every teen movie, and every Michael Bay-Wannabe summer blockbuster (Battleship, and virtually everything else)... It's all crap. Even the last quarter of Oct/Nov/Dec is all Oscar-hungry crap now.

I don't care if anyone says, "Well blah blah, no idea is original, blah blah." That's not the point. I know there's no original idea. The difference is, make a good movie. Don't make a crap movie. Would I pay $9 to see Battleship or John Carter? Hell no. People will pirate those movies.

I would have to be a total moron if I wanted to pirate Drive or Inception, arguably the two best movies in friggin' years.

[Doctor Jones]

Less movies are being made every year due to piracy.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Eh, the bad quality of the modern films is why I don't feel bad about pirated films. I'm not saying that it's right for people to pirate films but it's also not right for Hollywood to make such bad films and for those films to cost 10 to 20 dollars per viewing.

[craigdbfan]

Less movies are being made every year due to piracy.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqywxqMF8M1qgykhbo1_500.gif

[rogue trooper]

Would I pay $9 to see Battleship or John Carter? Hell no. People will pirate those movies.



I wouldn't pay to see Battleship, at least not from what I've seen so far, but I'm definately planning to see John Carter. It's looking good to me so far!

[Doctor Jones]

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqywxqMF8M1qgykhbo1_500.gif

It's what my film professor told me, who works in the industry. Because of piracy, less money is being spent on more films. If anything, more money is going to the bigger tentpole films.

If I were to have a quality original drama and send it to the studio, they would probably rather make the script with name recognition, or a sequel, or reboot, remake, etc. Because that is less of a risk.

[Rocketman]

Less movies are being made every year due to piracy.

Oh, hogwash. In 1975, only 35 films were released in theaters. Now it's like 200. We could easily cope with losing 50 movies a year, especially when none of those 50 are any good.

[dark_b]

It's what my film professor told me, who works in the industry. Because of piracy, less money is being spent on more films. If anything, more money is going to the bigger tentpole films.

If I were to have a quality original drama and send it to the studio, they would probably rather make the script with name recognition, or a sequel, or reboot, remake, etc. Because that is less of a risk.i think the producers and excecs take more money insted of investing it more on smaller movies like District 9. those producers are insane rich.


can we agree that in 2012 summer we have way to many blockbuster action movies? there is just no way for me to watch every big movie this summer. where should i get the time,money? some movies will underperform and bomb in summer 2012.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Oh, hogwash. In 1975, only 35 films were released in theaters. Now it's like 200. We could easily cope with losing 50 movies a year, especially when none of those 50 are any good.My thoughts exactly. The problem is that too many movies are being made.

[Destructus86]

I don't know about bootlegging...but I used to go to the movies A LOT. Now, not so much anymore. I wait for DVD because most movies are just not worth the price and money is getting tighter so only the best of the best get seen by me. :)

Studios just won't want to admit they keep releasing crappy material.

[Rocketman]

My thoughts exactly. The problem is that too many movies are being made.

Exactly. I hate the "More the merrier" mentality, as if that means that more people with different tastes are getting more variety for their personal likings. More movies =/= Everyone's tastes are satisfied. We essentially get 5 movies a year:

1. Big Dumb Summer Blockbuster (Superheroes included) - 3D
2. Romantic Comedy (most comedies are starting to have a romantic element to them now - bleh)
3. Oscar-Bait Drama - October/November/December
4. CGI Animated Kids Movie - in 3D
5. Horror Movie (Cheaply Made) - Oftentimes in 3D now

We get like 45 of each category per year. We could easily lose 20 of them, lol.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Exactly. I hate the "More the merrier" mentality, as if that means that more people with different tastes are getting more variety for their personal likings. More movies =/= Everyone's tastes are satisfied. We essentially get 5 movies a year:

1. Big Dumb Summer Blockbuster (Superheroes included) - 3D
2. Romantic Comedy (most comedies are starting to have a romantic element to them now - bleh)
3. Oscar-Bait Drama - October/November/December
4. CGI Animated Kids Movie - in 3D
5. Horror Movie (Cheaply Made) - Oftentimes in 3D now

We get like 45 of each category per year. We could easily lose 20 of them, lol.Absolutely, there are plenty of each any given year and most of them are bad. We soo do not need more films being made.

[craigdbfan]

Oh, hogwash. In 1975, only 35 films were released in theaters. Now it's like 200. We could easily cope with losing 50 movies a year, especially when none of those 50 are any good.

Yeah, I don't buy that for a second.

216+ films alone were made within the Hollywood system last year. I'd hardly call that a crisis or a sign of decline in the amount of movies being made.

[Ajendo]

This is why I spend money on foreign films and buy older Hollywood movies. Luckily for me, we have the Internet I know a lady who sells DVD quality bootlegs, wether I buy from her or not is another matter. The fact is, it's criminal for Hollywood to make crap and expect the audience to pay premium prices for their trite. Well, sniff sniff and boohoo to Hollywood. Do your job abs stop dishing our crappy products.

[batman44]

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqywxqMF8M1qgykhbo1_500.gif

Wow, as soon as I scrolled down to this image a song with a violin started to play from a computer.

[jmc]

Look, I don't condone piracy, but the lag time between when the US gets films and the rest of us borders on absurd sometimes. We live in an age now where word spreads like a bushfire when something is good, the sooner studios realize this the better it will be for both us and them. You want to kill piracy? Guess what, you can't, but you can suffocate it, you make it available for people to watch at a decent time at a reasonable price and people will pay. People who pirate are going to do so regardless, most honest people are willing to pay but when you're having to wait months what option do they have especially if it's a movie they really want to see what option do they have? Why am I having to wait 3 months for the new Pixar movie that has a 96% RT rating? It's 2012 for Christ sake, we live in an age of Twitter and Facebook, we are a global community now and studios need to understand that. You will never stop piracy as long as you try to implement old methods of business. I maintain that the first studio to remodel their approach as to how they do business will be rewarded.

[RachelDawes]

One of the factors is definately that the movies released in certain markets also have to open as well which can compete with other releases.
FOr example if Hollywood would basically show all their movies as the same time in the foreign markets , when will for example spanish movies or french movies or dutch movies have the time of the screens to be released.

ANother factor is also important sports events. For example it would be the dumbest idea ever to release a blockbuster during the time when the World Cup FOotball opens.

Still, you'd think that US releases and international releases would be only a couple of weeks apart, at most. Not the months apart they sometimes are.

[Max J Power]

I figure video streaming services are a big factor on declining box office returns. For the price of one person going to one movie in a theater, a whole family or group of friends could have Netflix for a month. Roger Ebert posted something to this effect on his website awhile back, saying he thought the theater companies couldn't rely on blockbusters and 3D to keep them afloat. On a side note, he pointed out that two or three of the top five most popular movies on Netflix Instant Watch were foreign, and indicated that theaters were underestimating how much people would watch things that are different from Hollywood norms.

As for piracy, I have little doubt it has a non-trivial, detrimental effect on the film industry, but I don't think it's crashing the business as much as the studios say. I still don't agree with the mindset that the studios deserve it for making bad movies, though.

[Rocketman]

Also, I'm not a business expert or anything, but...

If you brought the prices down, wouldn't you make more money in the long run? Wouldn't more people go to the theater if it were cheaper?

Most matinee prices are around $5.00/$5.75 (for a first showing of the day). What if movies were always $5.00? Call me crazy, but not only would you get more people to go (in which case, you'd make the same amount anyway), or, a crap-ton more people go, and you really make a profit.

Imagine if it had only cost $5.00 to see Avatar in 3D. Don't you think the movie would've made even more money? Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm just going by high school economics, which was 7 years ago for me. Supply and demand. If the demand for something isn't high (people wanting to go to the theater), why make it cost more? Wouldn't any business/company have a "Clearance" price to make the demand higher?

It's just like the Cinemark Dollar Theater in my hometown. The dollar theater, from what I was told (out of curiosity) does better business than Cinemark 15, the new release theater not even a quarter-mile down the road? Why?:

- The freakin' movies are only a dollar to see in the theater.
- The movies are all new releases (two weeks after they were at Cinemark 15)
- People only need to wait two weeks for a new release to move a quarter-mile down the road, and they save $8.50.

Just seems like common sense to me. :huh:

When two businesses are at "war" with each other over the same product, one has to compete to stay on the battlefield with the other. In this case, it's:

- Movie Theaters / DVD/Blu-Ray
- Pirating

How do movie theaters compete against pirates? They lower the prices.
Or, in recent attempts, they make something that causes challenges to pirates: 3D. You can't pirate 3D movies.
The only problem is, nobody gives a crap about 3D either. At least I don't (and neither do the people I know, who are serious movie-goers).

So, they need a new way to compete. This could be done a couple of ways.

1. Lower theater prices.
2. Make great movies again.

Hell, it could be both. Why the hell not?

[EML420]

Ive always thought one of the reasons we are getting so many remakes and adaptations is because studios are afraid to take risks on movies that may not be embraced by movie goers. At least in these hard economic times.
So they look at older movies and movies based off of books because there names people recognize there brands it kind of bothers me that brand names are being picked over a new idea were getting a movie based off a board game.

[Rocketman]

But that doesn't make sense, because 4th quarter movies (Oscar-bait films) are usually NEVER remakes and rehashes of other stuff.

I mean, usually, they're based on books or plays.

Doubt
Revolutionary Road
The Ides of March
Moneyball
The Help
Carnage
Drive

I could keep going, but the point is, these movies are technically "original" in the Hollywood sense.

My issue is that these types of movies aren't given more room to breathe throughout the year. They cram all of it into two months, and it's exhausting, because I essentially wait 10 months to see good movies, and then cram 20+ movies within a 2 month timespan. This past year, not so much, because 2011 largely sucked. The two best movies of 2011 were The Tree of Life and Drive.

And honestly, there are only two movies in the past decade that truly earn the title "original" in my eyes and they are Inception and The Tree of Life.

Just my opinion, of course. :word:

[mr. peasant]

Also, I'm not a business expert or anything, but...

If you brought the prices down, wouldn't you make more money in the long run? Wouldn't more people go to the theater if it were cheaper?

Most matinee prices are around $5.00/$5.75 (for a first showing of the day). What if movies were always $5.00? Call me crazy, but not only would you get more people to go (in which case, you'd make the same amount anyway), or, a crap-ton more people go, and you really make a profit.

Imagine if it had only cost $5.00 to see Avatar in 3D. Don't you think the movie would've made even more money? Maybe I'm wrong.

It's possible but it would depend on how much an increase in viewers a price reduction would produce. For instance, if they dropped the price of tickets by 10% and only got an increase of viewers by 10%, they would be losing 1%. Taking it to a more extreme value, halving the price would require cinemas to sell twice as many tickets to break even. As such, it's a balancing act. Complicating matters is that the number of tickets is a limited resource (e.g. a sold out cinema); whereby lowering ticket prices would result in cinemas lowering their profit potential (and consequently, actual profits in the event demand outstrips supply).

But that doesn't make sense, because 4th quarter movies (Oscar-bait films) are usually NEVER remakes and rehashes of other stuff.

On the other hand, these are seen as riskier ventures. As such, need to be balanced out by established franchises (which are seen as safer). Hugely successful movies help compensate for those that underperform.

As for why Oscar-bait movies aren't more spaced out, its very name suggests the reason - it's Oscar season. Movie-makers want to release their films as close to nomination time as possible so that their movie remains fresh on people's minds when it comes time to vote. Releasing a movie too early will likely cause it to be forgotten come nomination time and be overshadowed more recent films that are fresh in the public consciousness.

Another potential reason is fear of competition. I think it's generally perceived that flashy, effects-heavy action movies tend to have wider appeal than artsy ones. As such, trying to go head-to-head against them would likely reduce the number of people who would want to see the artsy movie.

[dark_b]

i was reading last week an article that i can not find. it was about how we the fans and general public can control how much money the studios make in the first and second week. for example the studios wants you to watch the movie the first day or the first week. if not the first then the second. so if we dont agree with them and if we dont like their promotion we shoudl watch movies in the 3rd week.

so what do you think? would this work? could this send the studios a message?

[craigdbfan]

No it won't work because people don't work in collective unison when it come to stuff like this.

If there's a high enough demand for the film people will watch it as soon as possible. Trying to organize such an event would prove itself fruitless.

[mclay18]

If there's a high enough demand for the film people will watch it as soon as possible. Trying to organize such an event would prove itself fruitless.

Well, even though studios would prefer the majority of moviegoers see the new releases within the first two weeks -- they also hope that word-of-mouth is strong enough to carry them through the third and fourth weeks too. Bridesmaids, The Help, District 9, and even costly movies like Avatar and Hugo had pretty good multiples because of decent to stellar word-of-mouth.

And if a movie has staying power like the ones I mentioned, it benefits the exhibitors since they gradually get more of the ticket earnings with each passing week.

[craigdbfan]

That's all true it's just having almost no one show up the first two weeks on purpose like dark_b is proposing for something say like "The Avengers" or "TDKR" for example would be essentially impossible.

[RachelDawes]

In order for one of those fan boycotts to work, it can't target a blockbuster that everyone and his mother wants to see. Nor can it target some Oscar-bait flick that the studio never believed was going to be a money-maker anyway. It's got to be some middle-of-the-road movie that Hollywood hopes will be successful but a chunk of the audience can hold off seeing for a couple of weeks.

[dark_b]

In order for one of those fan boycotts to work, it can't target a blockbuster that everyone and his mother wants to see. Nor can it target some Oscar-bait flick that the studio never believed was going to be a money-maker anyway. It's got to be some middle-of-the-road movie that Hollywood hopes will be successful but a chunk of the audience can hold off seeing for a couple of weeks.but shouldnt we support movies that are a risk for the studio and director?

[RachelDawes]

but shouldnt we support movies that are a risk for the studio and director?

Yes, but I'm saying that this is the only kind of boycott that will work. Don't kid yourself, a boycott of TDKR or the Avengers will go nowhere.