Woman Filming Parts Of Sister's Birthday Party At Theater, Charged With Felony Movie Copying

Wait, I Thought Piracy Had Killed Any Chance Of Zombieland 2?

from the perhaps-not.. dept

Fri, Dec 4th 2009 9:00am — Mike Masnick

Last month, we wrote about Zombieland director Rhett Reese, complaining on Twitter that the fact that his movie was a top unauthorized download would make it that much more unlikely that there would ever be a sequel. Others picked up that claim and ran with it, as if this was proof that piracy was harming the movie business. The whole thing seemed curious to us, since the movie has been quite successful at the box office, and has made a ton of money. Given that, who cares how much it's pirated. If it can make a bunch of money, of course it's ripe for a sequel.

And, guess what? Despite all the doom and gloom about how Sony would never make a sequel, Variety is reporting (you guessed it!) that Sony is about to ink a sequel for Zombieland, which will be done in 3D. Shocking. Even though the movie was pirated so much, the studio still wants to make a sequel? Could it be that there really are some people who recognize that how much a movie is pirated doesn't really matter if the movie can still make a ton of cash?

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: bittorrent, downloading, movies, popularity, rhett reese, sequels, zombieland
Companies: sony pictures

55 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

thublihnk (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:15am

Sweet. Zombieland sequel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B. (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  From what I hear, they originally pitched it as a TV series, where the movie ended up being the first and second episodes. Essentially, they have enough material for 12 movies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re:
  The Droid Sucks
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:04am

Well...
"Wait, I Thought Piracy Had Killed Any Chance Of Zombieland 2?"

Well, they thought that it had. Truly, they thought that after all the metaphorical bullets blasted into the Zombieland franchise by piracy, they thought it was dead. But apparently it takes something else to kill this sequel, because despite it's deathrows it got back up off the ground and continued to stumble and moan its way to us. Does that make the sequel undead? Is Umbrella Corp. involved in the reanimation of this movie? Have I beaten this one little analogy-pun to death yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Danny, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: Well...
  The problem is none of metaphorical bullets were metaphorical headshots so the sequel just kept coming. This sequel must powered by a serious virus of plague in order to take such punishment and keep moving.
  
  I guess the pirates need better weapons. Or maybe the people on Spike Tv's Deadlist Warrior need to do a Pirate vs. Zombie episode.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    I give it one or two more seasons before they DO start using mythical creatures on that show. I can't wait for Roman Centurion versus Chupacabra.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Danny, 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well...
      Nah its all Cloud vs. Link (and don't bother cheering for Cloud. Link would own him).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        "Nah its all Cloud vs. Link (and don't bother cheering for Cloud. Link would own him)."
        
        Yeah, but then Sephiroth comes and rapes link, while Squall whimpers in the corner about his Sis....
        
        Okay, I've outnerded myself here....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Danny, 4 Dec 2009 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
        The rape joke aside (which is tacky and mean) Sephiroth would indeed own Link.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - slander (profile), 6 Dec 2009 @ 2:10am
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    "I guess the pirates need better weapons. Or maybe the people on Spike Tv's Deadlist Warrior need to do a Pirate vs. Zombie episode."
    
    Throw in a few ninjas and laser-bearing sharks, and I do believe they'll have a winner on their hands...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lonestar, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: Well...
  Piracy forgot rule number 4: Double Tap
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mikey, 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    always thought it was
    4.????????
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alex, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Well...
  Zombieland Rule #2: Double Tap.
  
  Apparently they didn't do that to this movie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: Well...
  "Have I beaten this one little analogy-pun to death yet?"
  
  Not yet, it just got back up and hobbled off saying something about pirate brains and depth perception.
  
  (OK, now it's dead)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    "Not yet, it just got back up and hobbled off saying something about pirate brains and depth perception."
    
    Did my anaology pun get infected by the Zombieland Sequel Virus, or ZSV, because I put them in such close proximity? Does that also open me to risk of becoming exposed to ZSV, creating undead sequels of myself?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well...
      It's possible. You and the presently not-undead puns must be put into quarantine under heavy guard for 24 hours.
      
      (Oh god, Virus? Douse that mean that this is another "infected" movie?)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:59am
  
  Re: Well...
  despite it's deathrows
  
  Death row: where prisoners sentenced to execution are kept
  Death throes: jerking and spasming in the process of death
  Death throws: killing with a thrown object such as a knife
  Death roes: The ovaries of dead fish
  Death hos: zombie prostitutes?
  Heathrow: London's international airport
  
  OK I'm really stretching now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    Uh actually deathrows are oars embalmed with an agent that instantly dismisses the soul of any living being it touches. Those suffering from ZSV suffer them as a syptom of the virus, hence its proper use in my original sentence...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2009 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    HoHoHo: Santa
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
in3rtia (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:14am

Double tap?
I think piracy forgot rule #4.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:21am

Mike, sure, the movie made tons of money. But how much money did they lose due to piracy? Gee, you don't know that do you?

How much money did they gain because the movie was pirated and people saw that and decided to go to the movie. Gee, you don't know that either.

I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:28am
  
  Re:
  Aren't you missing the point a little? Mike didn't provide any numbers. The point was that the director rattled his tiny little saber around whining about how there was no chance for a sequel because of piracy. Now there's a sequel. Ergo, he was wrong. And given that financing in Hollywood doesn't exactly proceed at a breakneck pace, it's likely that he KNEW he was full of shit....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike rarely provides numbers (he learned from the UK music numbers, don't get me started on that again). The reality is that whatever Zombieland made as a movie would have likely been more without rampant piracy of the movie, plenty of people saw it and didn't pay.
    
    However, the studio involved saw enough income to make it worth doing a sequel, and by moving it to 3D, they are perhaps hoping to both make it better to see it in a theater, and also to potentially have the type of content for "3DHD" TV which is coming down the pipe. A catalog of 3D material would be very good to dominate the early stages of that market if it happens.
    
    That Zombieland made money in spite of all the piracy is an indicate that the public are still willing to pay for this type of movie, which is good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The reality is that whatever Zombieland made as a movie would have likely been more without rampant piracy of the movie, plenty of people saw it and didn't pay."
      
      I like how "reality" is what you think it is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      However, the studio involved saw enough income to make it worth doing a sequel
      
      That's the whole point. There was piracy, and profit, and a sequel. All at the same time. Some insist the profit would have been greater without the piracy (probably with no evidence). Others insist that piracy is the only reason many people bought tickets to the movie or bought the DVD (probably with only anecdotal evidence). But it doesn't really matter. The known facts are that there was piracy (I think everyone agrees a great deal) and the movie made money. So those things can happen together, and the movie studios claiming they can't make money because of piracy is BS.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  "I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."
  
  What money? I thought that was the point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:39am
  
  Re:
  "I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."
  
  Better that than the studios using their skewed guesses to enforce laws that put people in jail for filming a birthday party as per another article today...
  
  Anyway, the point is that despite "piracy", the movie has been very successful. Despite having the option to download a copy at home, enough people still went out to see it to make $75 million domestically on a $23.6 million budget (so far, according to boxofficemojo.com). Not bad. Same for other recent successes like Paranormal Activity, Twilight: New Moon, The Blind Side and Precious - all significantly in profit.
  
  In fact, on that site, the only movies making significantly less than their total production budgets domestically are the 3 most expensive - Planet 51, 2012 and A Christmas Carol - both making lots of money, just not near their massive budgets. To my mind, that proves that excess, waste and quality are the things holding back profits for Hollywood, not "piracy". That's an educated guess for sure, but more productive than "waaaah! piracy!" in an industry that still tries to control aspects of its product that cannot be controlled...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - senshikaze (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    wait, how is 2012 considered "quality"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Erm... that was my point :)
      
      2012 cost at least $200 million and has made back $138 so far. I might break even domestically on the gross, but will depend on TV and DVD sales to break even. It's not considered a good movie generally, and seems to be a bloated, indulgent mess by all accounts.
      
      Zombieland - considered a good movie, definitely in net profit by all normal standards. Ditto Precious, $32 million on a $10 million budget. Ditto The Blind Side (72% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) - $100 million on a $29 million budget.
      
      There's a trend here...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would love to hear a reasoned argument on this point that doesnt sound like a complete GreedTard(tm) rant about how they could have made EVEN MORE MONEY than the obscene amounts they already did.
        
        I think YOU make too much money and should be happy with what you have, now give me your wallet!
        
        To my mind, that proves that excess, waste and quality are the things holding back profits for Hollywood, not "piracy". That's an educated guess for sure...
        
        An actual "educated guess" might be that you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
        
        2012 cost at least $200 million and has made back $138 so far.
        
        Incorrect.
        
        I might break even domestically on the gross, but will depend on TV and DVD sales to break even.
        
        Incorrect.
        
        2012 has almost tripled it's production budget so far, and has made more money than Zombieland, The Blind Side, and Precious combined.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2009 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        2012 hasn't made as much as New Moon. New Moon only cost 1/4 what it took to make 2012.
        
        And both of those works were pirated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Alan Gerow (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I read it as a reference to a lack of quality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CVPunk, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:26am
  
  Re:
  "I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."
  
  There seems to be a whole lot of guessing going on here.
  
  "Mike, sure, the movie made tons of money. But how much money did they lose due to piracy? Gee, you don't know that do you?"
  
  They didn't lose any money because of piracy. You are basing this on the assumption that these people would have paid to see the movie in the first place. Ah, more guessing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Danny, 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  It might be guess but the fact is:
  
  The director whined about piracy wrecking the possibilty of a sequel and then about a week later a sequel is announced.
  
  Piracy did not stop the makers from opting to do a sequel.
  
  The makers of the Die Hard movie decided it was good enough for a sequel back in the late 80s before piracy.
  
  The maker of Zombieland decided it was good enough for a sequel in this day and age when "OMFG teh piraceee wil k|ll us!!!!"
  
  The moral of story is that while piracy does happen it is NOT doing as much damage to the movie industry as they want us to think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:29am

Fine
"I understand your points, but those are founded on a guess, but I guess its easy to guess with someone else's money."

Fine, you want to play Big Media Shill? Ok then. Shove this down your shorts:

Wolverine movie - a leaked, incomplete copy released weeks before the movie. Movie made over $200 mil domestically.

Dark Knight. HEAVILY pirated, multiple versions/copies available. 2nd biggest earning movie

OF

ALL

TIME

You can bleat all you want like a sheep about "but it could have made more" or whatever, but really, are these movies FAILURES because of "piracy"? Did "piracy" KILL them? KILL the industry? Please...enlighten us. I would love to hear a reasoned argument on this point that doesnt sound like a complete GreedTard(tm) rant about how they could have made EVEN MORE MONEY than the obscene amounts they already did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Reasoned argument, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: Fine
  Two bad analogies.
  
  1: Wolverine was unfinished at the time of the leak and
  
  2: There was considerable hype over the Dark Knight because of Ledgers death
  
  It was inevitable that both movies would still perform well against piracy given these factors.
  
  Many others are less fortunate
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re: Fine
    Oh no, bad movies will do badly. The horror.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Fine
      That gives me an idea for a movie.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
An0n (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:39am

Another B.S., P.O.S. 3D movie!?
"Sony is about to ink a sequel for Zombieland, which will be done in 3D. Shocking."

It was bad enough I had to sit through a crappy, pseudo-thriller with cheesy 3D and glasses that hurt my head (RE: My Bloody Valentine 3D). Now I have to watch more funny rules fly out of the screen? Come on...3D is a fad that needs to just die. Until I can see in 3D without the headache of those glasses (ie, a holographic movie), leave 3D alone. I beg of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: Another B.S., P.O.S. 3D movie!?
  Now I have to watch more funny rules fly out of the screen?
  
  Nope, you sure don't. It's really, really, easy to not see a movie you don't want to see. Actually easier than seeing it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
senshikaze (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:46am

night of the living sequel
there is just so many zombie jokes and puns for this that I can't think straight.

So who has the best pun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:56am

IF YOU DON'T LIKE PIRACY GET OUT OF THE SHIPPING BUSINESS!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  Arrr!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sergio, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:05am

Lost Sales?
Piracy does not equal lost sales. I personally know MANY people and have read posts by MANY people and have spoken to MANY people who have watched a pirated movie with no intention of ever seeing the movie in theaters. Many times I have spoken to people and myself included who saw a bootleg and liked it so much that they saw it in the theater or bought the DVD and also saw the sequels in theaters when released.

There may not be good evidence to support either side, but I truly believe that movie piracy helps much more than it harms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:08am

no, it just means that they are going to scream and cry about the money they lost to piracy rather than understanding that believe it or not, i dont have a home theater with DTS and a 20 foot high screen to watch movies on which is a value to me that i cant get from watching the movie on my laptop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjie, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:45am

bahh
They should implement a new law. You can't sue for copyright infringement if

A) You pay off all costs related to the production/R&D and made a 10% profit

and

B) The person infringing isn't making money, is not using the copy right for work, and can't reasonably afford afford purchasing the content

It should be the infringer's responsibility to show proof of income/bills to prove he can't reasonably afford. If the infringer makes less than $300 profit per month after bills/taxes/etc, they would be considered unable to purchase

Since any decent movie/song/etc worth pirating would pay off R&D easily, this idea would make it so poor college students wouldn't get sued and that guy making $100k a year with money burning a hole in his pocket would get what's coming to him for not actually spending his money. And you don't get these #$%holes with millions in the bank running around suing poor people because they want MORE millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc, 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:01pm

Sequels must be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:54pm

is pirating equatable to taxation?
"Could it be that there really are some people who recognize that how much a movie is pirated doesn't really matter if the movie can still make a ton of cash?"

That sounds similar to taxing rich people more as they've already made money (and will continue to make money regardless of how much they're taxed). Does that make it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sergio, 4 Dec 2009 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re: is pirating equatable to taxation?
  It's never right, but it would make sense that they wouldn't care that they were being taxed more if that rich person's income was directly dependent on keeping the government happy with them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 1:05pm

Actually, unauthorized copying of the movie probably is the only reason there IS a sequel (I don't believe that a movie can be pirated. A boat, yes, movie, no...). If EVERYONE who downloaded a copy of the movie paid to see it, they would have made so much money (according to the studios), that they would have been too busy spending it to make a sequel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 4 Dec 2009 @ 4:30pm

um...nope, missed again
"I think YOU make too much money and should be happy with what you have, now give me your wallet!"

Wow, talk about missing the point ENTIRELY. I would try again, but I recognize futility when I see it. FAIL.

"2012 cost at least $200 million and has made back $138 so far.

Incorrect."

No, its correct. Learn how to google. $142 gross domestic so far. 'The film was eventually made with a production budget of $200m – $260m'

"It might break even domestically on the gross, but will depend on TV and DVD sales to break even.

Incorrect.

2012 has almost tripled it's production budget so far, and has made more money than Zombieland, The Blind Side, and Precious combined."

Bwahahaha what the hell are YOU smoking? If it made triple its prod budget, it would be the #1 movie of all time. Wow you really are a COMPLETE and UTTER corporate shill, arent you? Your comments are not only idiotic, but are completely outside the bounds of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2009 @ 4:36pm
  
  Re: um...nope, missed again
  He's an insider so he knows that the production budget of 2012 was grossly inflated. Standard Hollywood accounting practices. It didn't make any money except all that money that it made.
  
  Which is blamed on the pirates and not the accountants.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 2:42pm

Bwahahaha what the hell are YOU smoking? If it made triple its prod budget, it would be the #1 movie of all time. Wow you really are a COMPLETE and UTTER corporate shill, arent you? Your comments are not only idiotic, but are completely outside the bounds of reality.

You and the other idiot are leaving out what is often the biggest market for big, dumb, blockbusters which is foreign.

Which means if YOU somehow miraculously learned to google you would see that 2012 has indeed made more than Zombieland, The Blind Side, and Precious combined. Which means it has long since "broke even" and has, in fact, almost tripled it's production budget, which means it will be one the few films that doesn't have to rely on home video and licensing...all of these facts contrary to what the first idiot said and you backed up.

Therefore, You and the other idiot STILL do not know what you're talking about so please excuse me for making use of your own quote --

"FAIL".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yeebok (profile), 6 Dec 2009 @ 12:21am
  
  Re:
  Testy today, AC. I think the biggest question is : Did the movie 2012 *deserve* to be successful ? Not in my book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real victims..., 14 Feb 2010 @ 8:56am

Your stealing MY f@$%&king money!?
Mike, you little piss ant, not only are you stealing money from the studios by pirating movies...but from everyone who worked on the film?! All the stuntmen who worked on the film, including myself, will lose a lot of money in residual payments due to piracy. And we depend on that money to feed our families. Yet here you are, you pompous little twerp, spouting off about how your only stealing from rich people so it's ok?! People who pirate movies are thieves...and a cowardly ones at that. You want to steal a mans money at least have the balls to look him in the eye and take it from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]