Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Hobbit and Game of Thrones Top Most Pirated Lists of 2013

timothy posted about a year ago | from the there's-a-fast-and-furious-six?! dept.

Businesses 193

DavidGilbert99 writes "Fantasy fans are clearly among the most prevalent downloaders of pirated material if the 2013 lists of most pirated films and TV shows is anything to go by. The Hobbit beat Django Unchained and Fast and Furious 6 while on TV, Game of Thrones saw off competition from Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead as the most pirated TV show. While this is clearly losing money for both industries, the US box office doesn't seem to be suffering too much as it is about to record its best year ever."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

been there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828221)

done that

Clearly losing money? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828229)

... and then stating their high profits?

Okay. Explain. How are they "clearly losing money"? Prove it.

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828243)

Reduced revenue from piracy = losing money they would have earned. Duh.

Re:Clearly losing money? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828301)

You can't prove that piracy reduces revenue, because you have to assume the people pirating would have purchased the content if it were not available for free.

Re:Clearly losing money? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828335)

How is it being 22 and the smartest person in the world?

Herpa derp college kids.

Re:Clearly losing money? (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45828509)

More than that, it creates a network effect, fans in places where it would be none, some of which getting the paid content, and there is, also, associated revenues (dvd/extended versions, merchandising, being first in the queue for the next release/season).

Your business don't exist in a vacuum, must take into account current reality and technology. Use that it can be copied and shared as an advantage, like Iron Maiden [torrentfreak.com] . After all, a good part of what defines us as humans is spreading memes, if you want to create a culture you must let it be distributed/copied/imitated/etc freely.

Re:Clearly losing money? (2)

tomhath (637240) | about a year ago | (#45828769)

A good example of what you refer to is known as Donationware [wikipedia.org] , basically an honor system where you get the content free and legal, but you are also politely asked to pay what you think it's worth to the author or donate to a worthy cause.

It's a nice Utopian solution to distributing IP. But as far as I know there have only been a few content producers who have been able to make a living off it, and even they don't seem to stay at it for long.

Re:Clearly losing money? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45829743)

Yep. Is there a legal way for me to send the Game Of Thrones people some money just because I feel like it?

All they need to do is set up a paypal account or whatever and display it at the end of each episode. Don't they feel they're missing out by not doing that...?

Re:Clearly losing money? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#45829411)

And that this group of people outnumber the ones who purchased the channel because they liked a pirated episode, or paid some insane price for a DVD box set.

Re: Clearly losing money? (1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year ago | (#45829529)

Of course some of those pirates would purchase the content legit if piracy options were unavailable. The real question is, how many? What's the percentage?

Re: Clearly losing money? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45829795)

You'll never know.

OTOH the "free trial" it might induce some people to buy the DVDs or a T-shirt. That's also unquantifiable, but all independent research shows it's more than the number you're worrying about.

Re: Clearly losing money? (1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year ago | (#45829981)

Citation? I'm skeptical.

Re:Clearly losing money? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829675)

I downloaded the Hobbit, also bought a copy of it too. I just didn't feel like going to the work of ripping it transcoding it etc. when someone else did it already.

So do I count as a pirate and lost revenue and accounted for revenue or do the revenues cancel out just leaving me as a pirate?

Re:Clearly losing money? (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#45830099)

yes, yes sir are a pirate. A gentleman pirate for sure, but according to the laws that govern such things, a pirate none the less.

Arrrrr, or some such, welcome to the ship

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828309)

"Reduced revenue from piracy"... explain.

Re:Clearly losing money? (3, Informative)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year ago | (#45828363)

Piracy may have added more revenue than was 'lost' by the download. You'll never see the real numbers though to know either way or the other.

Re:Clearly losing money? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#45829339)

If someone steals your car and then sends you $100,000 cash, you can still report your car stolen.

Re:Clearly losing money? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#45829553)

Yes, because in that scenario I end up without a car. If I "steal" a movie by downloading and then go see it in theaters/buy the DVD because of that, the studio/theater ends up with my money, and still has the movie in any case.

Please prove that statement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828531)

Put up an alternative world where they weren't pirated and prove your claim.

But if you can't prove your claim, please retract it because the evidence we have is that they aren't losing money.

Re:Clearly losing money? (4, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year ago | (#45828589)

The same logic by which the NSA all but shoving a microphone up your ass has prevented trillions of terrorist attacks!

Re:Clearly losing money? (3, Insightful)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about a year ago | (#45828317)

It is a running tenet in the entertainment industry that a download equals a lack of a sale. Common sense tells people that an unemployed basement dweller, third worlder who doesn't have a legitimate method to access content, or cheap soul who spends nothing on entertainment are lost causes for a sale.

I wonder to what extent piracy is being cited on tax claims from these guys. Flawed logic could save them heaps a year.

Re:Clearly losing money? (3, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | about a year ago | (#45828495)

Or first worlder that happen to live in a country where the content has not been distributed yet and don't want to wait for months or years or forever. Those piracy-afraid-companies should just bypass all the distributors and stream content directly to all the world at once.

Re:Clearly losing money? (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#45828575)

Then again, I know plenty of "first worlders" who have ample ability to access the content, but still feel quite entitled to download stuff. There's people who will use an app every single day, yet would rather pirate it than pay 99 cents. People who will play an entire game that they pirated, and go way past the "I'm just trying it out" phase. Sure there are people with more legitimate reasons for pirating content, but there's a very sizable portion of people who just pirate because they are cheap. Also, I'd like to point out that not there's no show/movie/game/other-entertainment-thing that you just have to have. If they don't release the movie where you live, then just watch some other movie, or play some other game. Downloading it just gives the entertainment industry more reason (flawed reasoning or not) to tighten restrictions on content, or not sell it in the country where everyone is pirating it anyway.

Re:Clearly losing money? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828683)

While you are 100% correct, and they have no right to the material, the point still stands. These freetards are not going to the theaters or buying DVDs or whatever, and therefore it is not a lost sale. If someone downloads a movie, but would have gone to the theater if they couldn't, then that is a lost sale. So some downloads are lost sales. Some are not. Some downloads may result in sales later (certainly only a percentage, but they exist). That download may also result in other sales, because the original downloader got friends interested (advertising). Regardless of the morality of downloading without paying, they are not all lost sales.

Re:Clearly losing money? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45828939)

The degenerate pirate is ultimately irrelevant.

All he does is help inflate the ego of some media mogul that really doesn't need his ego inflated anymore. The actions of these people are nothing to base public policy decisions on.

Entertainment is a luxury good and thus subject to a high degree of price elasticity. Beyond the degenerates, there's some price at which they will buy. You just have to find what that is and be wiling to offer it.

For the Hobbit movies, the fractional value of the sale of a single piece of media to Netflix is all you will get out of me.

Long live personal property rights!

Re:Clearly losing money? (3, Informative)

evilRhino (638506) | about a year ago | (#45829215)

These freetards are not going to the theaters or buying DVDs or whatever, and therefore it is not a lost sale.

Actually, there is evidence that people that share files buy more than the average public [arstechnica.com] .

Re:Clearly losing money? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828791)

I get probably 85% of my content legitimately. I pay for Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and a few other services. I own a roku. But some content I can't get without full on cable subscriptions. For those I hit the torrent sites.

I'd gladly pay to get a season of game of thrones, boardwalk empire, etc as it was released in 1080p that was playable via plex or my roku. Just like music, once I could get the content in a unencumbered form I stopped 'stealing' my music.

That said, there is also a lot of pirated content that is never viewed. For example. I watched the first season of GoT. I kept my rss feeder downloading GoT though all the remaining seasons, yet I've not yet watched it. Recently I was gifted the first 3 seasons of GoT on blueray so I deleted those downloads. I believe a lot of piracy works this way, large scripts that download content the script owner thinks he/she wants, but never actually consumes. I've deleted tons of crap I thought I'd like, downloaded entire seasons, watched 10 minutes and deleted the whole thing.

Re: Clearly losing money? (2)

Scowler (667000) | about a year ago | (#45829577)

GoT is available on Netflix. Maybe not Netflix streaming, but it's certainly false you need a cable subscription to view it legit without purchasing it. I watched the first two seasons of GoT via Netflix.

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829279)

very sizable portion of people who just pirate because they are cheap

and i guess a greater size of them pirate because they are poor.

Re:Clearly losing money? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#45829431)

If they don't release the movie where you live, then just watch some other movie, or play some other game.

Or volunteer at your local soup kitchen ... actual reality-based entertainment.

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829949)

Personally, I pirate movies/TV shows because there's no "just works" legal way to obtain them. The legal ways require an internet connection and/or proper DRM breaking in order to be usable (ex. playable on an airplane on a Linux laptop, which is a common usecase for me). Of course, as you say, I have no moral defense against the fact that I also don't pay for content. (I have pirated stuff I've bought just so I could use it, but I rarely bother with the buying step if I know I'll have to pirate it anyway.)

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Cereal Box (4286) | about a year ago | (#45830127)

Personally, I pirate movies/TV shows because there's no "just works" legal way to obtain them.

OK, so you download movies for free, gotcha...

The legal ways require an internet connection

Wait, what? Doesn't pirating a movie require an internet connection? And posting on Slashdot, for that matter?

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828517)

It is a running tenet among people who pirate movies, TV shows, music, games, and software that if they couldn't steal it they wouldn't pay for it either.

Yes and No (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#45828853)

Life is stressful, and for many entertainment is a valve for that stress. It's not that poor people downloading the Hobbit or Game of Thrones are causing a loss of sale on one or the other, it's that with a little bit of that stress relived they're much less likely to make a snap purchase (which they can't afford) to relieve that stress.

When add the fact that one or two players in the economy owns all the media and that corporate profits by and large go to 1% of the populace then the **AA's of the world's stance makes sense. It doesn't matter _what_ you buy, they make money either way. But they need you _ready_ to buy.

Let me put it this way: If you want chicken but you've got steak, odds are good you'll settle for chicken. If you've got neither I can sell you chicken.

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828649)

People torrenting a TV show aren't generally buying the DVDs, and sometimes aren't even subscribed to the channel. It's not even close to a 1:1 loss, but it is definitely a loss.

Re:Clearly losing money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828747)

"Hollywood Accounting" - the actual production company might make a tax write off loss, but all the contracted out ancilliary services make money like bandits.

Bullshit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828233)

There's nothing "clearly losing money for both industries" about it. Fans will buy it on blu-ray or DVD, or even itunes as soon as it's available, replacing their existing copy. TV shows are irrelevant, they're invariably free to air and watching them via downloads the next day doesn't cost the cable company or the program maker anything. The advert slots have already been paid for weeks, if not months in advance.

The only exception is Thrones. HBO's refusal to let that out via alternative means in a timely manner is probably costing them. However, fans of the show will soon buy it on blu-ray when it eventually hits the shelves.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828291)

Piracy does interrupt the profit model, but the best way to combat the issue isn't to lock up the goodies, but to make the goodies more ubiquitous through online distribution and ask for a reasonable price that will deliver the same profit margin when you take into account the less expensive distribution model of online distribution. The industry initially took the wrong approach, but is now learning its lesson the hard way. When faced with quickly changing technology, it's best to embrace the new and find the best way to make your customers come to you rather than pirate sites in India, China, Russia or via a torrent. If you make the cost reasonable, and include nice extras that they can't get elsewhere, you will find your customers will keep the model going.

Re:Bullshit (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#45828313)

The only exception is Thrones. HBO's refusal to let that out via alternative means in a timely manner is probably costing them. However, fans of the show will soon buy it on blu-ray when it eventually hits the shelves.

I haven't figured out why they won't just sell you an HBO Go subscription as a separate entity. They have a digital content distribution system in place. It has support on many different devices. Yet they still require that you buy their channel through a cable/satellite provider and THEN get access to it.

Why not just have an HBO Go subscription for $10/month? They can cut out the middle man (cable companies) and get a lot more customers that only do internet based TV.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Yaotzin (827566) | about a year ago | (#45828385)

Because they can. I'll bet they've thought about it and concluded that the most profitable option is to keep their cable bundling for as long as possible. I live in Sweden where HBO opened up shop about a year ago as a purely digital service for ~12 USD/month (at current rates).

Re:Bullshit (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | about a year ago | (#45828841)

I'd go as high as 10 USD a month for HBO. But honestly the value of netflix at 8 USD a month is growing to a point where I'm not even sure on that. For 8 bucks a month I get tons of old content and a growing amount of really good original content. Where as netflix has tons of stuff for me to watch, HBO only has a few shows I'd really care about seeing. Maybe a Pay per show/season would be a better approach.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828465)

they get $10 a month per subscriber with the deal that they can't offer a stand alone HBO Go sub
if they did then the cable companies would ask for more money to carry HBO since it would mean fewer customers for them

there is also the fact they Time Warner doesn't pay anything to collect the cash. no CC fees, no billing department, no billing software. they just get a check from their cable company customers and that's it. offering HBO Go stand alone would mean incurring more costs

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828615)

the cable companies would ask for more money to carry HBO

Hold on! The cable companies always claim they're the ones who pay to carry a channel.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828717)

HBO is a premium channel you have to pay extra for. in the USA it costs $10 - $20 per month extra depending on your TV provider and whether you are in the special discount period of the first few months.

HBO is owned by time warner and they share that $20 revenue with the TV provider

and no time warner cable is not time warner. its a separate company now

Re:Bullshit (1, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#45828493)

For me living in a country where Games of Thrones is not on TV or available via any other channel, TPB is the only reasonable option. Recently I saw some promo of HBO pay-TV having that show, sorry, not going to pay a buy a channel subscription for a single season of a single show (and of course subscriptions go per year). And that's not even considering past shows that I didn't watch yet.

And honestly TPB serves me so well that I don't even bother checking out the other options.

Re:Bullshit (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#45828597)

Because in the US they want to be the middle man for others, they want to use HBO original series as the hook to get people subscribing to HBO so they can sell network time. In the nordic countries we have HBO Nordic which is a pure Internet solution similar to HBO Go, funny thing is that I subscribe but I still use my one-stop torrent shop to watch those shows as well.

Re:Bullshit (2)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | about a year ago | (#45828677)

> Why not just have an HBO Go subscription for $10/month? They can cut out the middle man (cable companies) and get a lot more customers that only do internet based TV. Because they are the middle man; HBO is owned by Time Warner whose entire business model is packaging tons of crap you don't want with the few things that you do and yelling at the top of their lungs about what a great value it is.

Re:Bullshit (4, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about a year ago | (#45828693)

I haven't figured out why they won't just sell you an HBO Go subscription as a separate entity. They have a digital content distribution system in place. It has support on many different devices. Yet they still require that you buy their channel through a cable/satellite provider and THEN get access to it.

Why not just have an HBO Go subscription for $10/month? They can cut out the middle man (cable companies) and get a lot more customers that only do internet based TV.

HBO doesn't want to cut out the middlemen, because doing so would actually lose
them money (or at least not make them as much as one would expect, while at the
same time seriously pissing off their current revenue sources):

Why Doesn't HBO Allow Non-Cable Subscribers To Subscribe To HBO Go à la Hulu? [forbes.com]

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829213)

I haven't figured out why they won't just sell you an HBO Go subscription as a separate entity

Obvious reason is their business partners: Comcast, Time Warner, Dish, et al

HBO do deals with those business partners, not subscribers. If HBO do streaming, Comcast and the rest stop doing deals with HBO and then the gravy train grinds to a halt

Without those business partners, HBO must start a whole new business, marketing themselves, signing up and then dealing with a million whiny customers. So much nicer to let others deal with all the peons while sitting back, making decent TV, and collecting big checks from a small number of resellers

Re:Bullshit (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about a year ago | (#45829829)

I would have been happy to pay for GOT, but they wouldn't let me. I had to buy a continuing subscription - that based on past experience might be nearly impossible to cancel. Regulations requiring a "cancel subscription" button right next to the "subscribe" button on websites would help.

I don't know if this is the case with HBO in particular, but it isn't obvious from the website how to cancel.

Re:Bullshit (3, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#45828521)

There's nothing "clearly losing money for both industries" about it.

Of course not. That's the standard line. First you complain about piracy, how it's so bad for business, how you obviously lose billions, and next you post the best revenue and profits ever, showing that, on a per-person basis, people have actually spent MORE on movie tickets, CDs, DVDs, online services, etc, than the year before. Despite all that piracy. Or should I say, thanks to all that piracy?

People Actually Pirated The Hobbit??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828275)

A shit director teamed up with a bunch of sleazy Hollywood execs to turn a short and beloved fantasy story into a gigantic three part turd of a movie series in order to try to milk as much cash out of the IP.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit??? (1)

BreakBad (2955249) | about a year ago | (#45828553)

Yes, why pay for someone to shit on your face when someone else would do it for free.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit??? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#45828631)

Seriously, I made it about 30-45 minutes into the first hobbit movie before turning it off. Basically same opinion as yours. I found the first installment of LOTR was too slow for my tastes, so taking the smallest book and chopping it into 3 parts is just kind of ludicrous.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit??? (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | about a year ago | (#45829493)

It would seem to me that you would rather a straight up non stop action movie. That isn't how these movies were billed. Personally I liked the first movie and look forward to watching the second some time in the near future. In order to do just The Hobbit right would have required one very long movie or two shorter ones. Instead they decided to do a trilogy and include more material to flesh out the world more. When originally published The Hobbit came first, only later did Tolkien expand on his world for the LOTR trilogy. So now that we are getting movies delivered out of order it makes sense to include more of the supporting story for the entire world because there is now an existing market with an appetite for more of that world and story.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit??? (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#45829347)

The old saying was wrong. Old hobbits are not hard to break. Smeagol is as Smeagol does.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit??? (2)

yodleboy (982200) | about a year ago | (#45829725)

what would have made you happy? Michael Bay directing The Hobbit as a two hour explosion fest? You want to see shitting all over a beloved short novel? Try the Starship Troopers movie. Now, maybe 3 movies is a bit long, but at least it's being done by someone that cares about the source material. Did you ever think that sometimes the only way to sell this stuff to those sleazy execs is to give them a way to milk it?

It's incredible that people will sit around and bitch about getting too much entertainment at a time when most studios would be happy to give you a 90 min stinker like the latest Conan remake for the same price.

Re:People Actually Pirated The Hobbit??? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#45829999)

in order to try to milk as much cash out of the IP.

I'm fine with that - what I didn't appreciate was the entirely confused story, poorly written and acted characterization, an entirely inappropriate thematic approach, and the use of the film as a vehicle to funnel huge amounts of money to WETA to pay for entirely misplaced Massive graphics scenes.

In short, trying to make the Hobbit feel exactly like LoTR, which also ruins the rise and influence of Sauron in LoTR by failing to provide the required contrast. The two film eras needed to have different approaches, and Jackson failed at this, probably in a vain attempt to strengthen his franchise.

Allow me to save the Internet some bandwidth: don't torrent The Hobbit. It sucks. Read the book, it's terrific.

Bad movies and good TV (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828277)

So people download bad movies and acclaimed television series. That's a strange mix. I guess people are willing to pay for good movies.

Obvious (0)

hedleyroos (817147) | about a year ago | (#45828315)

Fans of those movies / shows are more into gaming / software and know how to use torrents and usenet. There will always be a percentage of people who pirate material. The industry should just accept that and move on.

Too long (2)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year ago | (#45828325)

To start with a disclaimer: I haven't pirated The Hobbit (or indeed any other movies since my student days many, many years ago) and have no intention of doing so.

But on the other hand, after sitting through the first one, there is no way on Earth I am going to sit through the second one in a cinema. If I ever do watch it (which is a bit 50/50 given what a bad adaptation I thought the first one was), it will be in the comfort of my own home in a format where I can pause and resume at will, breaking it up into more manageable chunks.

I don't actually dislike going to the cinema; I'll happily sit through 2 hours or so of movie. But if you want me to go for a 3 hour+ bladder-bursting ass-numbing epic, then give me the opportunity to pause it for a while and go for a walk around in the middle.

Hell, I can still just about remember when longer films used to have an intermission during showings in a cinema. I know that's not an idea that's popular in the days of cram-'em-in multiplexes, but it might be worth bringing back for films like these to lure people like me back to the theatres.

Re:Too long (1)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about a year ago | (#45828657)

Pause button? To sit through any of those movies, I either need a fast-forward button or a place to nap.

Re:Too long (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#45828749)

Whatever happened to putting an "intermission" in long movies? Would it really be that bad? The Cinemas would probably make a few extra dollars. People could get up, stretch their legs, use the bathroom, buy some more snacks and drinks. It's not needed for 1.5-2 hour films, but for movies pushing 3 hours it would definitely be an advantage is some respects.

Re:Too long (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#45829407)

Whatever happened to putting an "intermission" in long movies?

The ongoing decline of quality in movie audiences, I imagine. Someone will have to hold your seat because if you leave say a sweatshirt, if it's not stolen it will likely be urinated upon. If it is stolen, when you return someone will likely be in your seat, and odds on they'll be on their cellphone and will insist you do not disturb them.

All in all, piss on going to the theater. I have a Blu-Ray player which I've used never, because even an upscaled DVD looks good enough for my purposes. Perhaps one day I'll get my fancy LED from DX, and then I'll see about reviving my DLP projector. With a 1600LM LED I should still be able to get an adequately bright 10' picture even after color correction.

Did my part (1)

rjejr (921275) | about a year ago | (#45828341)

All 3 seasons of GoT back in April. Saw both Hobbit movies in theaters though, full New York prices, sorry. I'm not DLing "epic" feature films to watch on my tv, GoT is on tv regardless. If it was on Hulu or NF I'ld watch GoT that way. Can I get HBOgo w/o HBO yet?

Netflix DOES have Game of Thrones (2)

Scowler (667000) | about a year ago | (#45829447)

Netflix does carry GoT, that's how I watched the first two seasons of it. I will watch the third season as well once they get it.

Pirated? (1)

Toshito (452851) | about a year ago | (#45828343)

I sometimes download episodes I missed from tv series. Now they would call that pirating but seriously, what's the difference between recording it myself and watching it later, or having someone else record it, and I me downloading it and watching it later? I will not watch the ads anyway...

If having someone else record the show for me is pirating, does that mean that if I ask my neighbour to come to my house and start the recording of the show while I'm not home a form of pirating?

I desperately want to give HBO my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828357)

I desperately want to give HBO my money. I sincerely do. I love Game of Thrones. Unfortunately, I don't have cable TV (just netflix, itunes, etc). I've looked into every option to buy Game of Thrones and give HBO my money. I've looked into HBOGo (their online streaming service), but unfortunately it requires an HBO subscription. I've looked into buying just HBO through my cable company, but unfortunately they won't allow that without buying a full cable TV package for $80 a month minimum. I've looked into buying it through itunes Australia since it was released early there, but unfortunately I can't without an Australian credit card and address.

I can't be the only one in this situation. It seems like HBO is trying to desperately cling to the old fashioned cable TV model where you have to be tied to a subscription cable service. We all know that model is dieing off with the older population. Hopefully in short time their attitudes will change.

Re: I desperately want to give HBO my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828461)

I'm sure there are frustrating contracts involved here, going back decades

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828483)

in the USA most cable companies will offer very basic TV packages with HBO on top of it for $15 - $20 per month more. in the USA HBO costs close to $20 per month.

and in the USA you don't have to have a CC to buy from itunes. you can buy gift cards almost everywhere and add them to your account to buy stuff on itunes

Re: I desperately want to give HBO my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828527)

I called to cancel TV yesterday. They offered me local channels plus HBO for $19. Given all the series I watch and the convenience of HBOGO, I took it. Comcast kept a customer by understanding that's all I was after.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money (1)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about a year ago | (#45828719)

Last time I was forced to play Comcast's threaten-to-cancel-so-I-can-keep-my-promo-price game, I somehow ended up with a year of HBO. It's the biggest "meh" I've experienced in entertainment. There is never anything on I'm interested in. And it's not even in HD. There's like 800 channels of useless sports in glorious high definition and then HBO in low res.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828811)

I desperately want to give HBO my money. I sincerely do. I love Game of Thrones. Unfortunately, I don't have cable TV (just netflix, itunes, etc). I've looked into every option to buy Game of Thrones and give HBO my money. I've looked into HBOGo (their online streaming service), but unfortunately it requires an HBO subscription. I've looked into buying just HBO through my cable company, but unfortunately they won't allow that without buying a full cable TV package for $80 a month minimum. I've looked into buying it through itunes Australia since it was released early there, but unfortunately I can't without an Australian credit card and address.

I can't be the only one in this situation. It seems like HBO is trying to desperately cling to the old fashioned cable TV model where you have to be tied to a subscription cable service. We all know that model is dieing off with the older population. Hopefully in short time their attitudes will change.

Buy the fucking DVDs then, you idiot. If you want first run content, you have to subscribe. You don't like that since you feel like its not worth the cost, but it turns out that "i don't feel its worth the cost" holds up in court when you steal something.

Trolling out of the way, I totally agree that with the infrastructure available online there is no reason why direct digital distribution cant run just as well (and net HBO more money) than the old fashioned way with piece of shit QAM signals running around on coaxial cables.

Re:I desperately want to give HBO my money (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45829063)

The problem with "doing the right thing" is that you've likely forgotten about it but the time that the industry finally gets around to accommodating you.

I did this with a TV series I actually bought. By the time I finally watched it, it had gotten to Netflix by then. Felt a little silly really.

The LAST thing that American corporations want is for consumers to learn how to engage in self-deprivation. Screeching Puritans are pretty irrelevant in this regard. The "victim" here cares about hard currency. Notions of "crime and punishment" are likely the furthest thing from their minds.

Smug moral superiority doesn't pay the bills.

(DRAMATIC SIGH) (4, Insightful)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year ago | (#45828371)

Simple solution: Stop hiding your TV shows and films behind a wall of artificial scarcity. We have the internet which gives us instant access to whatever we want whenever we want. That has spoiled us and you (studios) haven't capitalized on this yet or are too damn slow.

Put your film in theaters. Once it is no longer profitable at the box office then put it on youtube (not some proprietary bullshit site that only runs in IE or some other nonsense) for a discounted rate and allow multiple viewings. Don't rent me a fucking film for $2.99 and then only give me access for a few days at most. That is a rip off. Let me pay a few bucks for a month or two or three. Honestly how much money will you lose if you let people have the movie for three months? How many times in one month is someone going to watch a movie? This is especially important for childrens shows/movies where they might want to watch it a hundred times.

TV shows, do what South Park does: Release the episode on both TV and the internet AT THE SAME TIME! Put a few commercials in there just like a regular TV episode and people will watch it. Or give them the option to pay a cheap monthly or yearly fee to watch commercial free. Id pay southpark studios a few bucks a month to watch their shows if I could see them all commercial free. If you are a premium show like Game of Thrones then do the same damn thing but for a fee. Let me watch an episode for a dollar and let me have access for a month or more. Or let me pay a few dollars to watch as many episodes as I would like for a month or so.

People have enough of a burden trying to pay bills/make a living and you expect us to spend hundreds on cable TV, tickets and DVD/BR *every month*. No thanks, we have better things to spend our money on. Your content is simply a time waster when we want to relax for a bit or go out every now and then. We dont need it and I am not willing to pay the exorbitant amount demanded. Adapt or die.

Re:(DRAMATIC SIGH) (1)

superdude72 (322167) | about a year ago | (#45828733)

$2.99 to rent a film for 3 days is a fucking rip off? You lost me there. I would add, the timer on the three-day period doesn't start until you start watching the movie (on Amazon, at least.) You have a month to start watching the movie.

And if the kids are going to watch Despicable Me (for instance) hundreds of times, yes, the studios and distributor clearly *would* lose money by not offering a "buy" vs "rent" scenario. $10 to stream Despicable Me (in SD) as many times as you want! Now clearly this is a value judgment. I can't tell you you're wrong for how you feel about that. But clearly, a lot of people find that reasonable. As someone who lived through the '80s and '90s, and paid $4 to rent a VHS tape at Blockbuster, then often paid an extra $2 a day in late fees on top of that, I find it a hell of a deal. To me, it's not worth pirating a movie to save $2.99.

A bit of a digression though. The issue with Game of Thrones is that you *can't* stream recent episodes for a fee. You have to have a costly cable subscription. Different kettle of fish, which is why the show is so pirated.

Here's Why (3, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year ago | (#45828435)

A latecomer to the Thrones saga, I purchased the first two seasons in November of this year. I fell for the palace intrigue immediately, watched the first two seasons in a couple of weekends, and then discovered the 3rd, already filmed and telecast, season (with the friggin' dragon on the cover) isn't available until the middle of February.

Are they 3D printing the CDs or what?

Re:Here's Why (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45828481)

I feel i've wasted my modpoints. I've should have seen this a bit sooner.

Re:Here's Why (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about a year ago | (#45828487)

I've

Grammar natzis inbound...

Re:Here's Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828641)

Hopefully the spelling Nazis won't be far behind!

Re:Here's Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829399)

natzis

Spelling Nazis inbound.

Re:Here's Why (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year ago | (#45829783)

The same reason why it took like 3 years for the last Game Thrones book to come out in softcover rather than hardcover. It isn't like there was some sort of shortage, or production problem. It is because they want to sell you more hardcovers which cost 3 times as much. Myself I refuse. Even now that it is out, I am thinking of waiting til it comes out in a used book store. I was that pissed at how they handled it (two released dates delayed) when it was obvious they are just being dicks about the whole thing.

All the old media models do this.

Re: Here's Why (1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year ago | (#45829785)

Is it so terrible to wait until February? It's not like you'll ever be more than one season behind. I love the show, but I don't mind waiting myself.

It's HBO's Fault.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828467)

I begged them to take my money; I would have gladly paid for an HBO subscription. They refused to take my money, unless I put a f**king Comcast box in my house! Maybe, one of these days (if we live long enough) the entertainment industry may even finally get the message!

Then again, they're the entertainment industry, and all have their heads firmly and well placed up their asses!

Makes perfect sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45828515)

Those living in a fantasy land find it pretty easy to conjure up a reason why stealing content is perfectly ok. "Tyrion Lannister would do it!" sheesh

Re:Makes perfect sense (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45829081)

> Those living in a fantasy land find it pretty easy to conjure up a reason why stealing content is perfectly ok. "Tyrion Lannister would do it!" sheesh

More than 200 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with your notion that copying is some sort of crime.

They should USE pirates (0)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year ago | (#45828691)

maybe they could put in the metadata a "shop" url and then some sort of serial number so that folks that have been screaming

PLEASE TAKE MY MONEY!!! can actually do so.

Besides nowadays everybody knows that a movie with less than say 4 torrents SUCKS BADLY (after say a week from release)

Fantasy Lads (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about a year ago | (#45828997)

Yeah well they're living in a fantasy land if they think they're going to keep on getting away with it! Article 4.2 of the TPPA is coming to an ISP near them soon! Then we'll see whose fantasy we're living in.

Re:Fantasy Lads (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45829099)

Yes. Because that is exactly what American Corporations need: a population that's adept at limiting their consumption.

or consider this (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | about a year ago | (#45829153)

Netflix is undergoing another content purge. I'm perfectly willing to pay for the service. There are some movies I never got around to watching that are disappearing. Oh, well. I'll have to pirate them then.

It's important to note how my viewing habits have changed.

Before the Internet: Tape from live TV, borrow from the library, Blockbuster

After the Internet: Tape from live TV for broadcast shows, watch crummy encodes of anime leeched from napster and other early p2p services, would buy reasonable sets of DVD's for material I love and will be rewatching.

After Bittorrent: All BT, all the time

After Netflix Streaming: Is it on Netflix? No? Ok, now start searching torrents.

I've gotten away from buying physical media because I don't have the space for it. I do want to reward the creators, I just don't have a proper means to do so. Here's the kicker: Netflix is MORE convenient than piracy. For a small fee, I have shows on my TV, laptop, phone, tablet, and they all stay in sync. I don't have to remember my watchlist. Hell, for TV downloads I keep a text file in the directory that I update after I'm done watching so I don't lose my place. That's less convenient than Netflix.

I'm happy to pay for a service that's timely and reasonable. I'm not waiting six months if the shit's done and released elsewhere. I'm also not paying a bajillion dollars because some executive's wife needs new tits.

Re: or consider this (1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year ago | (#45829669)

In other words, you don't respect any of the content you're viewing or the people who produced it.

Re:or consider this (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | about a year ago | (#45829687)

There was a period as a young single adult where I torrented movies constantly and probably watched a couple at least every night. Now I just use Netflix for most of my passive entertainment. The only stuff I find myself torrenting is regular network TV shows that we get too far behind on watching. I'd really like to watch GoT but I'm not going to buy a cable subscription and pay a premium price for special channels for one or two shows of interest. So for now I just don't watch it at all or wait for it to show up on Netflix.

Game of Thrones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829163)

hah, the first time I saw the name Game of Thrones I thought it was a fantasy MMORPG for Windows. Later I found out it is a TV show on HBO. Guess I need to get out more. lol

Re:Game of Thrones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829297)

It was a series of books long before the HBO show... maybe you should read more too

Arrrrrr! (0)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year ago | (#45829219)

I be a pirate, mateys!

I paid thirty bucks a pop so my girlfriend and I could see The Hobbit in 3D...twice. That's $120 right there, spent gladly, without a moment's hesitation.

Last night another $60 went into the pockets of the movie industry when we went to see Part 2. We're going to go back again...that will raise the total to $240.

And I have absolutely no doubt we'll see Part 3 when it comes out...probably twice AGAIN. That will mean that off just one guy of average means, the movie industry will have made $360 for what is essentially ONE story.

So if I had downloaded Part 1 without paying AGAIN so we could refresh our memories before going to Part 2, I'd be a "pirate"? I'd have to worry that the industry and their tame douche nozzles in the MPAA would be all over my lily-white bum?

Screw them. If there's ever a way I can legally stick it to them, I'll do it laughing. I wish them ill. To the conscienceless greedoids putting honest, paying customers into situations like this, I hope their lives that turn into ugly, painful battles for survival. I truly, deeply detest them.

Ultimately just how much of this kind of rancor do those arrogant, greedy bastards think they can create before average people the hammer on them once and for all?

ibtimes? why not link to TorrentFreak? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829607)

Come on, why not link to the original source TorrentFreak - which covers the top pirated movies every week - instead of IB Times' report of the report?

Statement pulled from where, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45829793)

While this is clearly losing money for both industries

I added the bold part, and to that entire sentence, I can only say "lolwut" in order to properly express my opinion of the validity of the original statement.

Both productions sell like crazy. The theatres are full with movie-goers watching The Hobbit, part deux. Boxes with Game of Thrones fly off the shelves in most stores I've seen it available in.

The media industry is breaking its own records, regularly.

We, the people, spend more of our disposable income on media and entertainment than ever before.

In short:

Who the fuck do they think is believing their blathering about any made-up losses?

I haven't spent as much money on entertainment ever before, and I do pirate a bit. If I pirated less, I'd spend less, since I've discovered more stuff that way than I would otherwise have done. I can't possibly spend more, since I don't have more disposable income available for entertainment purposes than I already spend.

Do they want imaginary money to cover for their imaginary losses, I wonder?

At least it would be consistent...

I'm reminded of South Park here. (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#45829883)

Butters complaining about "Floppy Penises" and "Where's the Dragons?!?" when talking about Game of Thrones. Of course Martin didn't order the pizzas and said that they would be coming and be the best! Oh and there would be five of them! An analogy of the dragons in GoT. Best three South Park Episodes ever! [uproxx.com]

Backwards Logic: Who sells what to whom? (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | about a year ago | (#45830033)

TV shows are not made to entertain people. They are made to gather people in front of a particular station, at a particular time, so that they become an "audience" (perhaps with a particular "demographic"), during which time the station SELLS YOUR EYEBALLS to advertisers. The "scarcity" model is not artificial; it is a crucial component of maintaining the novelty of the show so that it can be used as bait again to gather more eyeballs for more advertisements.

Once something is available on DVD (or, now, for streaming), it is automatically less valuable for re-runs, because everyone who wants to see it has already had the ability to see it whenever they want, instead of the once-a-year that "seasonal favorites" were released when I was a kid (and you HAD to be in front of the TV when it was on, because there was no home VCR to time-shift it). (Disney manages to suppress their content for years between releases, making scarcity itself a product.) Plus the producers cannot sell new advertisements; they had to make one-time deals even for "coming attractions" on the disk (out-of-date within a year, and therefore often of value only to the same producer), and certainly had to make a one-time deal for the cost of selling the material in physical form. No wonder they prefer the pay-per-view jukebox model.

Remember: In the video industry, if you can't see the product they are selling, it's YOU.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?