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

A thing to note is that it was a CAM recording of the film that was leaked.<p>I have only ever watched one cam recording of a movie before. I think it was 'The Illusionist.' I was at a friends house, he slapped it on. The color saturation was wrong, the sound was like mono and the camera appeared slightly off so the very top or bottom of the screen was cut off. It wasn't completely unwatchable but it spoiled the movie. Its like watching a film through a neighbours window.. crap.<p>Piracy has far more effect on DVD sales. This is for 4 reasons. The price of DVD's, the inconvenience of going out and getting the DVD, the bullshit adverts and unskipable junk before the film and the menu which takes 20 seconds to display before you can press PLAY.<p>If there was a DVD quality recording of the avengers I think it would have easily had 5x more downloads, probably 10x. However, realistically the cinema is an experience. If you enjoy the cinema you are going to watch a film like this at the cinema - then maybe download it. I am firmly of the opinion that if you make a blockbuster film, whether it leaks or not it will do well.

Torrentfreak's articles seem to get better and better. They note the ways in which piracy is hurting films (foreign sales) and show some numbers indicating that in the US it doesn't appear to be hurting sales much at all. While obviously torrentfreak can't ever be considered objective in regards to piracy, they seem to be getting closer each time.<p>Back on topic then, Does anyone have the background necessary to know if someone (anyone) is working towards disrupting the complicated publishing mess that keeps films from being available overseas for so long.

<i>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</i><p>The direct impact of cam releases might very well be negligible. The bigger problem for the studios is that if word gets out that a blockbuster movie fails the expectations of its potential audience. That probability is much higher if there are CAMs available before the theatrical release.<p>So, to minimize losses caused by piracy, make your movie not suck.

For me it usually comes down to the 'is it worth it?' Avengers was worth it - you knew it was going to be great in 3D, explosions, cinema sound, Iron Man, etc. Whilst I begrudged paying £16 (~$26 US) for me and the girlfriend (before even thinking about drinks / popcorn) we were always going to see it in the cinema.<p>Compare that to a film that doesn't excite me (or most of the general population), and all of a sudden I'd rather wait for the movie on Netflix or whatever, because then £16 is better spent on a takeaway and watching from home.<p>I know films are different strokes for different folks, but the cinema is <i>really</i> overpriced if you're in the 'shall we / shan't we' category, so I can understand people just thinking - I'll pirate it and save the money (or spend it on dinner) and watch from the comfort of my home - the risk to reward is so much lower.<p>I'm not saying that's right - just with the cost as it is you need a great (or mass appeal) product to get bums on seats. Or you have lower the cost in cinemas and make going to the cinema the experience ("we can choose a film when we get there") rather than people just going to see something in particular.<p>EDIT: Regardless, great article on TF ;-)

<i>that there is a detrimental effect on international box office figures. The researchers attribute this impact to the wide release gaps</i><p>Damn right. It makes sense that if you release a film in Europe 6 months after the USA that there will be more piracy in Europe. Why should we have to wait? There is a simple solution: Release films at the same time/day. This is an example of piracy making things better for the consumer, and this sort of market-correcting piracy should be encouraged.

If I may play Devil's Advocate. I can understand why Distributors, movie companies, etc go so far in pushing anti piracy. Not necessarily just because of the fact that it hurts profits (although by a minor fraction), but also because it's only logical to do so. If movie companies were to one day come out and say that they are ok with people pirating their movies, who's to say that it won't increase the number of people attempting to pirate the movies since you would not be punished. In this case the act of making pirating taboo and portraying it as anti social behavior helps in minimizing the acceptance that pirating is OK by mass advertising(Although this technique may not effective, but I haven't read enough to get a sense that it doesn't work). Although they take extreme measures, it's that fear of getting caught that helps in maintaining their profits which make their share holders happy.

I'm pretty sure I know exactly when the film companies will abandon the current business model for movies (theatres plus DVDs) and switch primarily to online pay-per-view-like scheme, with DVDs going out pretty much immediately and theatres surviving, but slowly fading.<p>It will happen as soon as the first studio realizes and takes advantage of the fact that with such a scheme you a) can charge for the same movie over and over again, and b) you can greatly improve the feedback on how popular which movies are, which could use an update/sequel and which should be left to die. This is something we in the Web business take for granted, but in the movies they are still too ingrained in the old ways that they don't see the benefits and effects of online distribution. But they will, mind you; not all at once, but as soon as it proves itself they'll jump on the bandwagon.

The people that should be scared by piracy are those that aren't making really high quality, possible cult films. If you're making the next Jennifer Aniston movie, which replicates tens of others then people won't be motivated to go to the cinema, some may pirate it and others may buy it on DVD just for something to watch but you can't dedicate a huge following to go watch it in the cinema.<p>The Avengers got people to go in mass groups and those people told other friends to watch it.

I'll be honest, I downloaded the CAM version and it was crap to me, and someone had mentioned it was a great movie, so I went to the theater to see it because I didn't want to miss out.<p>I think the guy who released that CAM might have been doing the movie studio a favor because it might have made the next guy feel like he didn't need to do his own upload which might have been better.<p>If there was a good version available when I went to pirate it, I wouldn't have dragged myself to the theater.<p>I wanted to buy a large popcorn and soda with my cash when I got in there, but I only had $12 so I had to put it on the card.<p>I just wish they would release stuff on Amazon or iTunes (although I hate that program) the same day as it comes out.<p>Anyway, I spend way too much money on Amazon videos.

Fatuous.<p>A cam'd version of The Avengers is not a market substitute for seeing the movie in a theater. Of the movies you could possibly consider this way, The Avengers is among the <i>least</i> amenable to substitution via cam'd copies.<p>All the widely-available torrents of The Avengers are cam'd or equivalent. There aren't screeners circulating.<p>A DVD rip <i>is</i> a near-perfect substitute for a DVD (or a streamed version of the movie, or whatever).<p>Nearly 50% of the revenue from motion pictures happens after the theater release, most of it DVDs.<p>Think what you want to think about torrenting movies, but it should bother you when sites like Torrentfreak insult your intelligence.

The most mind boggling thing I've seen big studios do is block some trailers, promo videos or music videos in countries other than the US/UK/Canada or whatever their main market is. Why in the world would you ever do that?<p>It makes absolutely no sense - they're blocking people in other countries from getting to know their new movie/single, which means those potential cinema goers and DVD/CD buyers either forget about it or go to torrent sites to get it, so when the movie/single is finally released, few people care about it.<p>One of the stupidest thing I've ever seen, for sure...

Nice post, he fails to mention that the camcorder version may have <i>increased</i> ticket sales. I know people who have watched a torrent of a movie to see if it was worth the $10 - $20 it costs to see it in the theater.<p>So of the 100,000 people who downloaded it, it would be interesting to poll how many went to see it after seeing that it was a decent movie.

I watched the CAM recording over the weekend(before this I had no desire at all to see the Avengers) and decided it was worth actually seeing in a theater. I think that's what a lot of people use CAM recordings for. To sample a movie before spending the money to see it in theaters.

&#62; anti-camcording technologies [<a href="http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-dying-art-of-camcorder-piracy-120426/" rel="nofollow">http://torrentfreak.com/movie-spy-cameras-attack-the-dying-a...</a>]<p>This is largely off-topic but I was wondering if there are any other popular anti-camcording technologies?<p>Also could a large IR lamp facing the viewers (or aimed at screen) be used to disrupt the usage of camcorders? This will be additionally beneficial as a large part of the world requires heating solutions during significant part of the year.

"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."<p>Even though I agree with most points in this article, the 0.5% is a bit off. When a "pirate" (yarghh) decides to download a movie, they usually end up watching it with friends and/or family - not just by themselves..<p>Still, if you really care about a movie, you would watch it in a cinema instead of watching a bad "CAM" version.

I believe pirating does affect ticket sales but really only for the lower budget/less anticipated movies. I tend to bucket all the movies I want to watch into 3 categories: go the movies, dollar theater, and download. The less I truly want to see the movie the lower down the bucket list it goes.<p>So yeah a movie like the Avengers which for me and probably most others will definitely be in the top bucket won't be affected much by pirating. Can't say the same for say Madagascar 3.

Even one lost customer to piracy justifies in the minds of RIAA/MPAA the spending millions on lobbying, creating draconian laws, and using the Government as their muscle.

Because Aardman stop-motion animation has a niche fanbase? :)