Harry Potter Will Conjure Up Big Sales, Despite Piracy
from the it's-a-magic-trick,-apparently dept
A few weeks back, Michael Moore's latest film, Sicko, was released and fared pretty decently at the box office, despite being available on P2P networks -- a situation one hyperbolic article described as "every film maker's worst marketing nightmare." That's a story that's played out time and time again, as the mere availability of pirated content hasn't held back the sales of legitimate content. Now, stories about the latest Harry Potter book being available on file-sharing networks are starting to come in, ahead of the book's release this weekend. This news isn't being met with the same level of media freakouts as when a reporter discovered Sicko online, with even the CEO of Barnes & Noble saying it "won't sell a single copy less" of the book despite it being available for free online. The biggest reason for this is the inconvenience of the pirated copies: they're huge PDFs, reportedly of low quality. To approximate the book-reading experience, users would have to print out all the pages, which could be time-consuming and expensive, while reading the book on a computer screen or monitor wouldn't be a lot of fun for many people. This draws parallels to other forms of piracy: for instance, while most new movies are available for free from file-sharing networks, plenty of people still want to pay to watch them in a theater, for a variety of reasons. Certainly there are people who will overlook any amount of drawbacks to get free content; chances are they wouldn't pay for legitimate content anyway. But there remains a large market of people who are perfectly willing to pay for content -- so long as content producers can provide them with sufficient value.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: books, entertainment, piracy
Companies: barnes & noble
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Funny, that's my weak spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny, that's my weak spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny, that's my weak spot.
But in any case, I totally agree with you, Haywood. There are a number of movies that I would be willing to pay for in order to see because it's worth what I spend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny, that's my weak spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not really the low quality
I've pre-ordered it and I'm getting the hardcover in a few days, however, I do love reading the pdf file on my palm.
So this piracy will not affect sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Acknowledge by the Pro-DRM apologists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three movies that were released in the "summer" of 07, in a time when the movie industry was reeling from record falling sales and those sales were lagging due to massive contraband downloading issues.
Three movies with a virtual mass appeal; three movies that were sequels in a success factory; three movies that were quite entertaining and well made:
Three movies that are now in the top ten grossing opening weekends, AND in the top 20 grossing movies of all time.
The problem came to light in 2005 when the industry felt that downloading was killing their gross. Blockbusters like “Herbie: reloaded” weren't bringing in the billions they wanted and deserved! 2006's sequel to “The Fast and the Furious, a movie that appeals to all gear-heads and illegal street-racers apparently wasn't going to top E.T. at the box office, and that's because downloading is so prevalent.
Downloading IS a huge problem in the world, only because the motion picture and record company people have their heads stuck so far into the sand. Release what the people want…not what you want the people to see or hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Movies have been mostly boring remakes, theaters don't make the 'experience' appealing, and huge home theater screens with 5.1 surround duplicate the view and sound. Plus, studios are releasing DVD versions soon enough that many people (me included) don't fee l the urgency to pay $50 buck to go out when I can wait 6 months and buy the flick for $15.
Downloading probably costs less than people buyin one tickat at a megaplex, and then sneaking into two other movies as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
potter is a fake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the point of this story?
"So long as the content producers can provide them with sufficient value."
Do you mean that as long as the publisher's distribution method is significantly superior to pirated copies they'll still have a business? If so, that doesn't bode well for publishers or authors -- technology will catch up and online reading will get better.
This site seems dedicated to apologizing for piracy, or trying to play it down as some sort of unavoidable irritant. Worse, many authors here demonize publishers of content (book or music) as being greedy when they try to protect their assets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the point of this story?
Besides, analyzing a few enormously popular movies/books from the effects of piracy does not say anything for the other 99% of media available, even if only 5% of that is "good" according to your standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the point of this story?
However, it is the MAFIAA's position that
1) every act of piracy (ie every download) is a loss in revenue.
2) piracy is rampant.
Let's say this were true...then it would be much more visible/detectable by looking at (analyzing if you want) "a few enormously popular movies/books": as this enormous popularity would result in a larger availability of pirated material and a large(r) group of piracy-capable (and willing) people, the negative effect of piracy on revenue would be much larger and easily detectable...yet it isn't...
So even though looking at a few enormously popular movies provides no direct data on the rest of available media, it sure can confirm or disproof a general trend/statement.
Which it does, it shows that piracy is costing the MAFIAA an arm and a leg is total bs.
or as Carlo states: "Certainly there are people who will overlook any amount of drawbacks to get free content; chances are" (actually, I would even say: it's extremely likely) "they wouldn't pay for legitimate content anyway" I would add these people are only a tiny segment of all "potential" consumers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the point of this story?
For one, you are disregarding what most people have said about these movies, that they are "worth seeing" or "worth paying money for". Secondly, you state that if piracy is a problem, then with larger movies piracy should be "much larger and easily detectable", which implies that if the increase in piracy is not proportional to ticket sales, then piracy must not be a problem (or not costing them an arm and a leg).
While it may be true some insight may be gained from looking at it from your point-of-view, you are still making many assumptions and extrapolations from popular movies concerning consumer habits (or "general trends/statements") when it comes to all other movies. I am simply pointing out the narrow range of data from which the conclusion of this article was reached, as true in other Techdirt articles (eg "this particular band put their music out on the internet for free and got publicity which made sales! thus, in conclusion, piracy is good for bands").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the point of this story?
NOT DIRECTLY! If I can (for example) listen to more than the one cut off an album that got airplay, than I can decide if I want to actually buy it. More exposure does not always lead to more sales, just lets me screen out the crap.
I bought several albums on vinyl, only to find that the one song I liked was the only thing worth the time to listen.
Downloaded versions don't really compete, they help customers filter out crap by going around the official marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You spell out the real issue there. It's not about piracy, it's about quality and the value of going to a show.
Show prices are a bit on the high end of 'reasonable', but it's worth it sometimes. I guess show prices have never been *real* cheap - well since the 50's anyway perhaps.
But the film has to give fans a reason to believe it's worth watching. The crowds can be a bit of a hassle on the weekends too - making it not just a 2-hour movie experience, but couple it with outrageous concessions it almost requires one to eat out ahead of time. I can get a whole meal for my family for what we would pay in concessions for some popcorn and a drink for four of us. Literally - the last time we got 4 colas and 2 large popcorns it was $25.00.
Not complaining about price here, just stating a fact that going out to a movie is a 4 hour event.
Am I going to go see 'Tom Cruise'? I think not. I want to see a *good* movie. Now if Tom Cruise is in a good movie, I might go (ok, bad example there, he ego will keep me away no matter what).
But still - I'm planning on watching a movie this weekend - or let's say, I will see if there's anything good out. I've already seen Spidey 3 and Shrek 3. YES at the Theater.
I go to watch a movie - but that's only half of it, it's really a family outing. The people who download the torrents - guess what - they don't care about going out to see that particular movie, nor are they going to pay for it - they'll simply wait.
A tactic I all too often employ - just waiting for it to come onto cable. Very few movies indeed will have me *rushing off* to the movies. Mad Max 4 might, or perhaps something really good.
But, if I'm annoyed with the junk at the theater - perhaps I'll just go Putt-Putt again :O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But how will Tom Cruise be able to pay off the Scientologists if no one sees his movies? He won't be able to free himself from the alien life forms inside his body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance Policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, lame rationalizations on TechDirt
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to brad
i had a family friend work as the Store Manager for Wal*Mart. he said they had in their budget something like $30k a quarter or something for "lost profit" i.e. stealing and that was just one store. i don't see walmart hurting for business. (as it turns out, his store was the top store in the chain a few years ago)
so yes, piracy happens. lost profits will happen. it's how companies deal with it.
I don't see McDonalds taking employees to court for taking a chicken nugget or cooking 3 extra burger patties.
so yeah, the problem isn't piracy, the problem is the raction to piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) piracy is happening (whether you like it or not)
3) unlike wild, unsubstantiated statements like "piracy hurts our bottom line" and "every download is a loss/lost revenue" all examples in the real world (and yes, often documented/reported on Tech Dirt) prove differently
4) it can help the industry...again, examples have been reported on Tech Dirt and I could give several from personal (for example people recommending me) experience as well
the main argument presented is that piracy rarely hurts and often helps "the industry".
Whether or not the RIAA and MPAA are evil is not even up for discussion, just look at all their FUD statements (even though they themselves know better) and the way they handle their lawsuits, nobody needs Tech Dirt to come to the evil-conclusion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I beleive their goal is to turn every piece of recorded media into pay-per-view, even CDs and DVDs.
The piracy is a smoke screen for a legal embedding of a few non-essential businesses, and allowing them to overrule rights of private citizens.
I do not download any inauthorized music or movies -- it is unethical to do so. But, the economic impacts have not been analyzed nor have all the factors been included in the so-called losses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not worth it.
Same thing with movies. I do not want to sit in my house to watch a downloaded copy of the latest movie because I actually want to get out of the house sometime (I intend to see the new Potter film this weekend in fact) and breath. Even if I owned some uber home theater I still can compete with the simple notion of going outside, well at least with today's technology.
And one more thing. Is there minimum requirement on techdirt postings using the words "content" and "value"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it will
I went to my friend's apartment and 3 of us sat down and read the PDF on their big screen together. All of us are buying the book Saturday, my friend had pre-ordered it in the first place.
I doubt millions of people want to read a crappy PDF with pictures of the book. The person who 'pirated' the book must have only had 10 minutes to do so, that's the only reason why I can think of on why it sucks so bad. He couldn't spend a day scanning it or taking proper pictures? The payoff would have been greater. Now he'll get caught and not even for being a good pirater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because some urban areas with a mostly black population have high crime rates the police should just treat all black people like criminals?
Just because some white males are racist and joing the KKK minorities should just attack all white males in retaliation?
Just because some child kidnappings victims are young girls does this mean the police shouldn't bother with making sure young boys are safe and put all their effort into protecting young girls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Completely Missing the Point
Well, I won't be buying a hard copy, so there's at least one. I won't be downloading the huge PDF either -- wait a couple weeks and there will be text versions freely available, as there are with all the other HP books.
The problem is that Rowling won't let anyone offer an e-book edition of HP books, so those of us who prefer e-books (admittedly a drop in the bucket for HP sales) have no recourse but to wait for the pirated version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Completely Missing the Point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy of products not offered in a market
"have no recourse but to wait for the pirated version" -- and steal from the author. It's the publisher's choice where and how to distribute their products. If they choose not to publish in your format, it in no way gives you the moral authority to just take it...."
Since the publisher doesn't offer an e-book version for sale, how am I stealing by downloading a text version? Can you point me to the lost e-book sale in there somewhere, because I'm not seeing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real issue
The real issue was actually the story. What happens to Harry Potter. Does he die? How does he kill Voldemort. Is Harry a horcrux? etc.
Obviously keeping that a secret was impossible as shown by the spoilers on the link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's stealing because you posess a work of copyrighted material w/o paying for that right/license.
if you were to purchase the hardbound book, and then make an electronic version for yourself, that's a bit different. but since you are in posession of a (C) work w/o paying, it's illegal.
just like having an mp3 of a song that isn't available for legal download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's like saying you get to steal audio books because you can't read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're getting the benefit of the author's work without paying for it. At minimum it's copyright infringement. The "since I wasn't going to buy it anyway, I get to just take it" argument is crap.
On getting a benefit without paying for it, What if I shared the book in a library. Isn't this taking away from the authors possible profit?
In this case, what if the publisher does not offer it in a format you use such as an Ebook?
What if you had a sight problem and you needed an electronic file you could easily increase in size in order to read easily?
Would you be breaking the law by downloading a digital copy if you had bought the book? What if you then lent the electronic copy to a another vision impaired friend who used a text reader because he couldn't see at all? This is obviously piracy, but if you were to lend him the book you bought it isn't?
You can go on and on with this stuff because you are not taking into account the most important principle. Once something is digital it has no real worth therefore you cannot claim damages. While I am sure many people disagree with this stance the reality is it is just a that data is a bunch of ones and zeros.
What worth is your hard drive without a computer or an OS and applications to run the data on it? How long before you hard drive crashes and you lose all you data? Even if you were smart enough to back up everything how much time will you lose restoring stuff? Does this effect the value of digital works?
If data has a "worth" so to speak it cannot be defined easily.
Here is how I think of it, if you are a oil painter and you paint desirable paintings you can copy popular paintings you have done in the past. Each new copy takes hours to produce and requires expensive materials. Each copy has a real value because it took time and energy to create it.
Once you digitize you art though, you could make thousands of copies without any real effort at all. What is the real value of a copy that took no effort to create?
So the only real solutions in my mind is to either accept that the majority of digital information has no real value therefore it cannot be the source of torts in the law or prevent media/art from reaching the Internet altogether. The later seems impossible without completely restructuring how the Internet works and ending any freedoms we may take for granted.
Personally, I think sacrificing our freedom on the Internet is not worth catering to the interests of big business who are the primary claims makers in this process so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You couldn't be more wrong. Delivery format most emphatically does not speak to value. You're confusing distribution method with product. You ask "What is the real value of a copy that took no effort to create?" shows how off-base you are. The CONTENT OF THE BOOK took a lot of effort to create and the author and the publisher of that book (who took a risk to publish the book) are due whatever proceeds they can earn from selling it. Are the plans for nuclear weapons worthless because they're digital? The fact you can copy it digitally does not make the content worthless.
You're contention means that all media, software, art, photography etc. is all worthless because it could be duplicated digitally.
I think your post accurately reflects the bias of this site in general.
If you want to live in a world where there are no protections for intellectual property, then you need to engage in only businesses that produce goods that can't be reproduced digitally. You should be a farmer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You couldn't be more wrong. Delivery format most emphatically does not speak to value. You're confusing distribution method with product. You ask "What is the real value of a copy that took no effort to create?" shows how off-base you are. The CONTENT OF THE BOOK took a lot of effort to create and the author and the publisher of that book (who took a risk to publish the book) are due whatever proceeds they can earn from selling it. Are the plans for nuclear weapons worthless because they're digital? The fact you can copy it digitally does not make the content worthless.
You're contention means that all media, software, art, photography etc. is all worthless because it could be duplicated digitally.
Reply:
Delivery over the internee is not the real point. The point is the value of works once they are digitized. While people may pay a dollar for a bunch of one and zeros in the form of music it does not reflect the actual value of the digital work unless of course you define value as what people are willing to pay (I don't).
My original point stands What is the value of this type of data really? Until we can answer that without huffy and puffing about profits and losses we will get nowhere in this new digital age.
Your argument seems to be that just because you digitize information it has not lost its worth. This may be true if you destroy the original and then be sure no copies are made, but this is not how the digital age works.
What is the cost of copying digital information? Once you have been payed for your work do you seriously expect to make money from seemingly no effort? That would be like using a color photo copier to make money.
All media is not worthless just because you can digitize it, but if you do the value of the digital copy cannot be anywhere near the actual work especially once it has been duplicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you buy a book, a small portion of your dollars go to pay for the physical aspect (paper, ink, binding, etc.) the rest pays for the content of the book.
Using digital methods to remove the cost of the physical book doesn't remove the value of the content itself. Repeat after me -- "I'm paying for the content, not just the physical form of distribution."
It's the same for music, software, etc. It doesn't cost MS $500 to package MS Office. You're not paying for the box and the plastic CD -- you're paying for access to the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Confusion is fun
When you buy a book, a small portion of your dollars go to pay for the physical aspect (paper, ink, binding, etc.) the rest pays for the content of the book.
Using digital methods to remove the cost of the physical book doesn't remove the value of the content itself. Repeat after me -- "I'm paying for the content, not just the physical form of distribution."
It's the same for music, software, etc. It doesn't cost MS $500 to package MS Office. You're not paying for the box and the plastic CD -- you're paying for access to the product.
Reply:
On your point about value I do not believe the majority of the money is for the IP rights. The majority goes to sellers and re-sellers and any middle men along the way. In fact I think that the actual raw materials and manufacturing costs exceed the amount that is given to the original creator of the art/media.
Once you have removed the physical copy you end up with a situation where the owner can make money without the work and materials that originally went into copying. This removes so many people for the economic process it isn't funny. Now are you going to seriously sit back and say that the digital content has the same value a physical copy of an original? Obviously it cannot have the same value due to many reasons. So back to the original point how do we define how much digital content is actually worth?
On you point about paying for the "content" I have heard of a micropayment concept that could work for the digital age. Here is a layman's example of it.
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/icst-6-full.html
And on reference to paying several hundred dollars for Microsoft software (so old stuff new package) I will pass. That is another freedom that has been created in conjuction with the Internet. Freedom to use a free operating system and free applications. In the end I hope freedom will win out on the Internet and our privacy will be respected regardless of what big conglomerates want. Freedom to choose forces business to adapt and trying to limit it, even for seemingly correct ideas like protecting IP is a mistake in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Confusion is fun
When you buy a book, a small portion of your dollars go to pay for the physical aspect (paper, ink, binding, etc.) the rest pays for the content of the book.
Using digital methods to remove the cost of the physical book doesn't remove the value of the content itself. Repeat after me -- "I'm paying for the content, not just the physical form of distribution."
It's the same for music, software, etc. It doesn't cost MS $500 to package MS Office. You're not paying for the box and the plastic CD -- you're paying for access to the product.
Reply:
On your point about value I do not believe the majority of the money is for the IP rights. The majority goes to sellers and re-sellers and any middle men along the way. In fact I think that the actual raw materials and manufacturing costs exceed the amount that is given to the original creator of the art/media.
Once you have removed the physical copy you end up with a situation where the owner can make money without the work and materials that originally went into copying. This removes so many people for the economic process it isn't funny. Now are you going to seriously sit back and say that the digital content has the same value a physical copy of an original? Obviously it cannot have the same value due to many reasons. So back to the original point how do we define how much digital content is actually worth?
On you point about paying for the "content" I have heard of a micropayment concept that could work for the digital age. Here is a layman's example of it.
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/icst-6-full.html
And on reference to paying several hundred dollars for Microsoft software (same old stuff, new package) I will pass. That is another freedom that has been created in conjuction with the Internet. Freedom to use a free operating system and free applications. In the end I hope freedom will win out on the Internet and our privacy will be respected regardless of what big conglomerates want. Freedom to choose forces business to adapt and trying to limit it, even for seemingly correct ideas like protecting IP is a mistake in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole thing is just... gay.... Gayer than a gay man... walking down San Francisco's Castro St.... wearing a pink, goddamn tutu. =)
Again, not a troll... just tired of the Harry Potter crap.
Jesus. What ever happened to kids playing Grand Theft Auto?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
want Harry Potter things to sell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Reed
as for personal loans, that's ok, because only one person has the book at a time. if you started making copies and giving them to your friends, that's illegal.
you do raise an interesting question about buying the book, then DL an electroinc copy. i want to say that's quasi-legal, due to the fact the book isn't available in that format, but you do own a true copy.
but as for digital content having worth, take a look at itunes. that's all digital content. and people pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The concept behind IP
I don't buy a book for the paper, ink, and binding. I buy a book to be taught, or informed, or entertained. Ms. Rowling and her business associates made a decision not to release her book in certain formats. No one has the right to a free copy, beacuse they made that decision.
However, I believe fair use would include scanning the book and placing the resulting file on an electronic device for ease of reading -- as long as I retain the purchased copy and never let more than one copy (original or reproduction) be in use simultaneously.
This would be a very interesting court case, probably decided no very narrow margins by the facts. Even if I acquired the electronic copy from another party (downloaded, as long I have purchased one copy and don't share -- it may still be covered by fair use.
IANFL, so this is all speculation. ANy lawyers around know of a legal precedent or ruling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The concept behind IP
But you should not then be able to give copies of the IP to others (unless you give all copies, including the original so that you no longer have access).
That's the definition of "sharing". I let you borrow my lawn mower -- and while you have it, I do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VCRs
if you were to purchase the hardbound book, and then make an electronic version for yourself, that's a bit different. but since you are in posession of a (C) work w/o paying, it's illegal."
This is, of course, exactly the argument that the movie and television industry tried to make against the VCR. What is the episode of 24 that I Tivo-ed and then burned to DVD? It is a copyrighted product that I didn't pay a single cent to the owners of said copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VCRs
On a side note congress was very serious there for awhile about banning VCR's altogether. It was actually testimony from Mr. Rogers that swayed congress into not banning the VCR. He argued that a family should be able to tape his show in the morning so they could watch it with their children in the afternoon.
On your comment about not paying, you did pay if you have cable. Besides they make money for the advertisements so in reality you are paying for a program that was already paid for through your cable service. Paying for commercials? Yes thats the true secret of cable. Now you wonder why the industry hates those TIVO's that let you skip them :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]